1 Corinthians 10:14

1Co 10:14-15. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, &c. — To understand what follows, it seems necessary to suppose that the Corinthians, in their letter, put three questions to the apostle concerning meats sacrificed to idols. 1st, Whether they might innocently go with their heathen acquaintance into the idol’s temple, and partake of the feasts on the sacrifices which were eaten there in honour of the idol? 2d, Whether they might buy and eat meat sold in the markets which had been sacrificed to idols? 3d, Whether, when invited to the houses of the heathen, they might eat of meats sacrificed to idols, which were set before them as a common meal? To the first of these questions the apostle answered, chap. 8., that their joining the heathen in their feasts on the sacrifices in the idol’s temple, even on the supposition that it was a thing in itself innocent, might be a stumbling-block to their weak brethren, in which case it ought to be avoided; but whether such a practice were a thing innocent or sinful in itself, he did not on that occasion consider. Here, therefore, he resumes the subject, that he might treat of it fully, and answer the other questions proposed to him by the Corinthians relative to that matter. Flee from idolatry — And from all approaches to it, whatever circumstances of allurement or danger may seem to plead for some degrees of compliance. I speak as to wise men — I use a rational argument, which will bear the strictest examination, and which I am willing should be canvassed as accurately as you please; judge you, therefore, what I say — What I advance, to show you that the eating of the sacrifices in the idol’s temple is, or leads to, a real worshipping of the idol: and that, therefore, you will naturally bring guilt upon your consciences, by such associations and participations of their idolatrous feasts.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

D. A dissuasive from partaking of idol feasts, as involving a fellowship with idolatry, and therefore hostile to all fellowship with Christ in His supper

1Co_10:14-22

14     Wherefore, my dearly [om. dearly] beloved, flee from idolatry. 15I speak as towise men; judge ye what I say. 16The cup of [the, τῆς] blessing which we bless, Isaiah 2 it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, Isaiah 1 it17not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many [Because we, the many, οί πολλοί ἐσμεν] are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers3 ofthat one bread. 18Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of thesacrifices, partakers [common participants, κοινωνοί] of the altar? 19What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing [that that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing, or that the20idol is any thing]?4 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice5 to devils [they sacrifice,4 they sacrifice to demons, om. Gentiles] and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship [be communicants, κοινωνοὺς γίνεσθαι with devils. 21Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. 22Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1Co_10:13. [Having enforced the duty of renouncing their rights and restricting their liberty by a reference to his own example of self-denial and its motives, he now returns to his main subject, from which he digressed at the commencement of chap. 9, viz., participating in the sacrificial feasts of the heathen. “But whereas before he dwelt only on the scandal to others, he now in accordance with the train of thought, begun in 1Co_9:23, dwells chiefly on the evils to themselves. And the sense of this evil is enhanced by the recollection incidentally introduced in 1Co_10:3, of the only Christian institution which bore any resemblance to these feasts.” Stanley].—Wherefore,—διόπερ shows that the following exhortation is deduced from what goes before. And this may be either the whole paragraph from 1Co_10:1, as: ‘in view of the judgments inflicted upon Israel and recorded for your warning, flee,’ etc.; or it may be what directly precedes, as: ‘since the faithfulness of God pledges to you the results of such watchfulness,’ etc.; or: ‘since ye have a God so faithful, therefore shun whatsoever would cut you off from His fellowship.’—What is expressed generally in 1Co_10:12, is now resumed with particular reference to the case in hand.—flee from idolatry.—By this he enjoins the avoidance of every thing, which, however remotely, would imply participation in idol worship. The preposition ‘from’ (ἀπό) adds force, q. d., ‘keep yourselves aloof from.’ [“The only safety is in keeping at a distance. This includes two things; first, avoiding whatever is questionable; and, secondly, avoiding the occasions and temptations to sin.” Hodge]. The use of the simple accusative as the object of ‘flee,’ would not, however, necessarily indicate that they had been already involved in idolatry (comp. 2Ti_2:22). For what follows it appears that he had in mind attendance at idolatrous festivals.—The address—my dearly beloved—imparts to the exhortation an urgent and affectionate tone.

1Co_10:15-21. As to wise men I speak.—In proof of the fact which occasioned the above exhortation, viz., that they by participating in idolatrous feasts, were taking part in idol worship—a proceeding which was one with the worship of devils, and wholly inconsistent with the Christian profession, he appeals to their own insight and good sense, which placed them in a position to judge for themselves of the correctness of what he was about to say. In so doing he at the same time gives them to perceive his own strong conviction of its truth, which he held to be so palpable that he could safely entrust it with their decision. The ‘as’ merely indicates the point of view from which he considered them.—judge ye—ὑμεῖς, is emphatic: ‘ye yourselves.’ Whether in this winning manner there lurks a delicate slant at their lack of judgment, some touch of sarcasm, is a question which we will not now discuss.—That participation in idol altar-feasts involved participation in idol worship, is shown, first, from the analogy of the Lord’s supper. He starts with the cup, while that which naturally follows is connected with the bread. [‘This mention of the cup first, before the bread, both here and at 1Co_10:21, is remarkable. Why was this? 1. Perhaps there was more danger of those immoral and lascivious consequences, against which he is writing, from excesses in the wine at the idolatrous feasts, than in the meats. 2. The Apostle has thus shown the essential independence of the cup as a necessary-part of the Holy Communion, and supplies a caution against Romish error. 3. Each of the elements is variously put first in the Holy Scripture, to show their, equal dignity and the equal necessity of receiving each.’ Wordsworth].—The cup—τὸ ποτήριον is undoubtedly accusative, corresponding to τὸν ἄρτον by attraction (comp. Mat_21:42). Of course the contents are intended.—of blessing;—so called, either from its effects, as it brings a blessing [so Olshausen]; or, preferably, from the act which immediately precedes, so that the words—which we bless—are epexegetical of it. By this we may understand the thanksgiving alluded to in (1Co_11:24; Mat_26:27), and interpret: ‘which we receive with thanksgiving’—an interpretation which transcends the meaning of εὐλογοῦμεν; or the consecration (comp. Lev_9:16), and then interpret: ‘which we set apart by prayer to a holy use’—an act which certainly included thanksgiving. The expression is derived from the observance of the Passover, when the third cup which went round was called הְבְּרְכָה .כּוֹם6 The subject of the verb ‘we,’ denotes the whole congregation, which unitedly consecrated the cup by prayer and thanksgiving. [“Observe the first person plural is the same throughout; the blessing of the cup and the breaking of the bread—acts of consecration, were not the acts of the minister, as by any authority peculiar to himself, but only as representative of the whole congregation (οἱ πάντες). And so even Estius, but evading the legitimate inference. The figment of a sacerdotal consecration of the elements by transmitted power, is as alien from the Apostolic writings as it is from the spirit of the Gospel.” Alford. And Stanley also comments to the same effect.]—is it not the communion.—κοινωνία is not the precise equivalent of ‘communication’ [as the Rheims version translates it, and as some insist on rendering it, in support of a sacramental theory]; even in Heb_13:16; Rom_15:26; 2Co_9:13, it may denote participation, which, however, is certainly not without communication. But the word here is used by metonymy for the means of communicating or participating (comp. Joh_11:25). [So Hodge: “The means of participating.” Alford translates “participation.” Calvin: “It is that connection which we have with the blood of Christ, when He ingrafts all of us together into His body, that He may live in us and we in Him.” Tyndale and Cranmer give “partaking.” But the E. V. seems to hit the meaning best: “communion of,” which implies a fellowship, a common sharing in the blood of Christ, according to the meaning of the root, κοινός, common, whence κοινωνέω, to have a thing in common, to have a share of a thing. This derivation shows that the idea of fellowship in the partaking is prominent in the word. It ever denotes a social act. And this idea is essential to the argument of the Apostle.] The strong literal sense of the verb “is,” must also be retained. This is not employed in a symbolic sense, as though it meant signifies; but it simply affirms the fact. The eating of the bread is the communion. This is required by the argument. [“If we render ἐστιν, symbolizes, the argument is made void.” Alford. So Hodge: “He who partakes of the cup, partakes of Christ’s blood.” But it may be asked here: ‘in what sense?’ This, of course, is not here explained. But it is in some real, veritable way predicable of all who partake. Otherwise the parallel with the idolatrous act rebuked, would not be sustained. Paul means to show that as by means of the sacrament we truly come into communion with Christ, so in the idolatrous feasts, whether a person intends it or not, he does worship the idol. Hodge, however, says: “This of course is true only of believers.” But if the fact of communion turned upon the presence or absence of faith, the participant at the idol feast might fairly reply, ‘I am not guilty of idolatry in this, for I eat without faith in the idol.’ And this was precisely what Paul designed to preclude by asserting the veritableness of the communion in drinking of the cup.] But does this view lead to the doctrine of a substantial identification of the wine with the blood of Christ, of a union of the elements with the matter of the sacrament (res sacramenti)? The Apostle is treating primarily of the participation of individuals in that to which the thing they partake of refers; or, in other words, of the fact that they, through that of which they partake, come into fellowship with that particular religious sphere to which the thing partaken of belongs. Here in the instance before us, it is with the blood of Christ, the ground and seal of the New Covenant; in the other case with idols, the sphere of a devilish heathenism; hence with devils themselves. Meanwhile, if nothing else hindered, we might suppose a real communion between the wine and the blood, since κοινωνία may be variously interpreted according to different analogies.—of the blood of Christ.—i.e., the blood shed on the cross, not His bloody death, as may be seen from the parallel term, “the body.” It is the blood of the covenant by which the forgiveness of sins and the whole salvation it includes is purchased (comp. 1Co_11:25; Mat_26:28), [the blood which has in itself also the Eternal Life, and to partake of which secures a pardon unto life eternal].—the bread which we break.—[The breaking of the bread was a formal public act, a part of the solemnity of the sacrament, in accordance with the example set by Christ, significant of the breaking of Christ’s body for us. The custom therefore of having the bread ready broken put on the table, as practised in some churches, or that of the Romanists in putting a wafer unbroken on the tongue of the communicant, must be condemned as contrary to the precedent of the early Church.] The consecration is here presupposed.—is it not the communion of the body of Christ?—It is a question here whether the word ‘body’ is used figuratively of the Church, which is the body of Christ, as some would interpret it, both here and in 1Co_10:16. The parallel with the word ‘blood,’ decides this in the negative, since there is nothing in this connection which the blood can be understood to symbolize; nor is there aught in the context which constrains us to such an interpretation. “It appears from this passage that the Lord’s Supper has been instituted as a real communion, and not as a mere symbol.” Neander.—because one bread, one body we the many are.—ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος ἕν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν. It would be natural to assume here a protasis and an apodosis, as: ‘because there is one bread, therefore are we the many one body.’ But to this it must be objected, 1. Paul very seldom introduces a protasis with ὅτι (1Co_12:15 f.; Gal_4:6, are doubtful cases); 2. the course of thought would in this way be interrupted, and we should have here a logical parenthesis, which is not to be supposed unnecessarily.—The ὅτι, because, evidently introduces an argument for the leading thought in the previous verse, viz., that the bread is the communion of the body of Christ. This is established by the effect produced in the Christian consciousness through partaking of the bread, that is, the union of Christians in one body, as a complex organic whole. This union is grounded in the fact that the bread is the veritable communion (κοινωνία) of the body of Christ. The sacramental bread is such a means of union in so far as it mediates the fellowship with the body of Christ, surrendered to death in behalf of all, and hence, a living fellowship with Christ the Saviour of all. But in educing this argument from the text, we are not to take the expression, “one bread,” as parallel to that of “one body,” making them both alike the nominatives after ‘we are,’ rendering the sentence [as the E. V. does]: “we are one bread and one body,” because, if for no other reason, in the next sentence which adduces a proof of what is here stated, “one bread” stands for the bread of the supper, while it here would be a figurative expression for the unity of believers, just as “body” is. The εἷς ἄρτος, one body, must therefore be taken as an independent clause with ἐστίν, is, supplied. The relation of the two clauses then will be either that of a comparison: ‘as there is one bread, so are we one body,’ or they will stand related as cause and effect: ‘since there is one bread, therefore are we, the many, one body.’ [So Meyer and Hodge, also Hammond, Locke, Whitby, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, and the Syriac version; but Alford, Stanley and Wordsworth adhere to the E. V. Alford says: “We are one bread by the assimilation of that one bread partaken.” “But this,” says Hodge, “is to make the Apostle teach modern physiology”].—The above rendering is confirmed by what follows,—for we all partake of that one bread.—(ἐκ τοῦ ἐνὸς ἄρτου μετέχ.). This again is variously explained. We may either take ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου, from that one bread, as the direct object of μετέχομεν, partake, and read [as the E. V. does]: “we all have part or partake of that one bread”—which is contrary to the otherwise uniform construction of μετέχειν (which requires the Gen. or the Accus. after it), and may be accounted for by supposing ἐσθίειν, or κλᾶν, understood. Or we may, as in 1Co_10:30, make τοῦ ἑνὸς σὡματος, of the one body, supplied from the context, the object of μετέχομεν, partake, and regard ἐκ as expressing the cause of such partaking, rendering it because of. Then the clause would be an explanation and confirmation of what precedes. [So Meyer; but this seems artificial and far-fetched, and is contrary to all the versions and the majority of the commentators. It is better to adopt the common rendering]. “The ‘body of Christ,’ of course, is to be conceived of spiritually; the idea, therefore, is not the same as in what precedes. The mediating thought between the statement, that the sacrament of the Supper communicates the body and the blood of our Lord, and the statement, that the Church is the body of the Lord, is this, that individuals by celebrating the Supper come into communion with each other. Bread and wine are to the Apostles vehicles through which communion with Christ is realized.” Neander. The declaration, “there is one bread,” obliges us to conceive of the bread at the Supper as one whole, whether it is one loaf that is broken, or several. But this oneness leads us back to the κοινωνία of the body of Christ as its ground.—In 1Co_10:18 we have a second analogy to prove the unsuitableness of Christians partaking of idolatrous altar feasts. It is drawn from the Jewish feasts following sacrifice.—Behold Israel after the flesh.—’Ισραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα, one idea; therefore without the article before κατὰ σάρκα. The designation is in contrast with that of “Israel after the spirit” (comp. Rom_2:28; Gal_4:29; 1Co_6:16); it means the Israel which is so, not by virtue of a Divine spiritual life arising from faith (Gal_3:7), but by natural descent.—are not those who eat the sacrifices.—[i.e., those parts which are not sacrificed. For the practice of eating the remainder, which was left after the parts specified, Lev_3:3, were offered up, see] (Deu_12:18; Deu_16:11).—partakers with the altar?—κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου may be interpreted either, ‘associates of the altar,’ inasmuch as they shared the flesh of the victim offered with the altar (comp. 1Co_9:13); or: ‘persons standing in communion with the altar,’ i.e., in religious connection with it, inasmuch as the festival acquired a religious significance by its relation to it. Therefore it is he does not say, ‘partakers with God,’ by which only the more general communion would be denoted, but not this stricter one (Meyer). To subjoin therefore “with God,” is needless and unsuitable. [Stanley says the reason why he did not say ‘with God,’ was “chiefly because communion with God was too high a thought to be brought down to the level of the mere outward ceremonial of the fleshly Israel.” But this idea is contradicted by Rom_9:4-5. As Hodge well puts it: “The question is not as to the intention of the actors, but as to the import of the act, and as to the interpretation universally put upon it. To partake of a Jewish sacrifice as a sacrifice, and in a holy place, was an act of Jewish worship. By parity of reasoning to partake of a heathen sacrifice as a sacrifice, and in a holy place, was an act of heathen worship.—It need hardly be remarked, that this passage gives no ground for the opinion that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice. This is not the point of comparison”].—In 1Co_10:19 he draws the conclusion he has been aiming at in this whole exposition.—What then am I saying?—i.e., ‘what is the result to which I am coming?’ He begins his answer by repudiating an inference which might be drawn in contradiction of his statement in 1Co_8:4. Is it—that what is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?—i.e., possesses reality, is veritable flesh consecrated to a god?—or that an idol is any thing?—i.e., has being as the very god which the heathen imagine (comp. 1Co_8:4 ff.); or, changing the accent and reading εἰδωλόθυτον—εἴδωλόν τι ἔστιν, he would say: ‘that there is any idol-offering, or any idol—namely, of the sort mentioned?’ Both constructions amount to the same thing.—But [i.e., ‘nay, but;’ this ellipsis of the negative taken up by ἀλλα, is found in classical Greek].—And now comes his direct statement—that what things they offer (it is) to devils and not to God, they offer (them).—The text is quoted from the LXX. version of Deu_32:17, which seems to be adduced as authoritative proof of his position. See also Bar_4:7, θύσαντες δαιμονίοις καὶ οὺ θεῷ. His meaning is: ‘This I say, that ye by partaking at heathenish festivals come into communion with devils; just as we through the bread which we break come into communion with the body of Christ, or as the Israelites through their sacrificial feasts come into communion with the altar, i.e., of God’s sanctuary.’ Before explaining himself, however, on the point that the heathenish sacrifices with which those feasts were connected, were offered, in fact, to devils, and instead of drawing his conclusion directly, he states it in the form of an injunction—and I would not that ye should have communion with devils—the very thing he would convict them of doing—and then he assigns a reason for this in the following, 1Co_10:21-22.—Such we conceive to be the logic of the Apostle (as Osiander and others). But Meyer understands it differently. He finds in 1Co_10:16-18, a justification of the warning in 1Co_10:14 : “Flee from idolatry;” and in 1Co_10:19 f., a repudiation of an inference which might be drawn from the analogy of the Jewish sacrificial festival (1Co_10:18); since by this he seemed to acknowledge a veritable communion with the gods in the heathen altar-service, and with this also the actual divinity of the idols worshipped in it.7—Since the idea of communion runs through the whole passage to 1Co_10:21, the first exposition of the order of thought merits the preference.—The δαιμόνια, demons, to whom the heathen sacrificed, are not imaginary gods—sub-deities, as it were; but, as is seen both from the connection and from the uniform usage of the LXX. and the New Testament, they are evil spirits, the chief of whom is διάβολος, diabolus, the devil. The expression in Act_17:18 : “he seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods,” is adapted to the usage of the Greeks [for the word δαιμόνιον was employed by them in a comparatively good sense, to denote the objects of their worship]. “It is probable that in order to exhibit the abominableness of all participation in idol-worship, Paul designedly chose an expression, which indeed among the heathen was used to denote their deities, but which among the Jews always designated evil spirits.” Bengel. To regard heathendom as the devil’s kingdom, was a mode of thought prevailing among the ancient Church, and well founded (comp. Osiander, p. 455 f.). We, therefore, must certainly distinguish, especially in the sphere of the Hellenic religion, between the opinion and intent of idol worshippers, and the objective powers actually operating in heathenism, which obtained Divine honor to themselves by darkening the human mind. But it would be wholly arbitrary, were we to ascribe to the Apostle the idea that the offerings of the heathen were presented to the devils in so far as these persuaded the heathen that there are gods to whom sacrifices must be offered, in order to receive to themselves under the name of gods, Divine worship and sacrifices (Rückert).—The “fellowship with devils” which he would not have them hold, was not merely a symbolic one, but an actual one, by means of which they would expose themselves to their corrupting influences (comp. Osiander, Bengel).—The wish just expressed he grounds upon the irreconcilableness of a participation in heathenish festivals, which involve communion with devils, with a participation in the Lord’s Supper.—Ye cannot.—The inability here expressed is of a moral kind—a moral impossibility.—drink the cup of the Lord,—that is, the cup of the Lord’s Supper, which belongs to the Lord, has been consecrated to Him, and is the communion of His blood; therefore, brings us into fellowship with Him.—and the cup of devils,—that is, the cup consecrated to demons, which brought a person into actual relations to them, and out of which wine was drunk at the sacrificial feasts, with pre-libations in honor of the gods.—Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils.—The table signifies the entire meal, including the consecrated food. [“From this passage probably, ‘the table of the Lord’ became an expression current in all ages of the Christian Church. See Suicer in voc.” Alford]. In this verse the Romish Church unwarrantably finds evidence for the doctrine that the Lord’s Supper was not simply a sacrament, but also a sacrifice (Cone. Trid., 22, 1). “It is not the Church that offers Christ in communion; but Christ offered Himself up once for all (Heb_7:27; Heb_9:25-26; Heb_10:10; Heb_12:14; Heb_12:18); and He brings to the Church the bread and wine, not for an offering, but to be eaten and drunk, in order that by this means He may give His own body and blood for their nourishment, according to His promise.” W. F. Besser.

1Co_10:22. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?—This is not to be taken conjunctively,—neither by assuming irregularity of formation, nor yet in accordance with the sense, as if it were deliberate. The indicative is still more emphatic. His meaning is, ‘ye cannot unite the two (1Co_10:21). Or, are we the persons who by such an attempt will venture to provoke the Lord to jealousy?’ Such would certainly be the result, inasmuch as we would be practicing communion with evil spirits hostile to the Lord, while professing to hold communion with Him who insists on our keeping ourselves exclusively His. The expression, “provoke to jealousy,” is taken from Deu_32:21, and is taken from the metaphor of a marriage between God and His people, which pervades large portions of the Old Testament, and in accordance with which the Church is represented as the bride of Christ (comp. 2Co_11:2). It denotes the strong displeasure which arises in consequence of adulterous love, [“and is the fiercest of all human passions. It is therefore employed as an illustration of the hatred of God towards idolatry. It is as when a bride transfers her affections from her lawful husband in every way worthy of her love, to some degraded and offensive object.” Hodge). The jealousy is one which is sure to bring severe punishment; and this is what one seems to challenge upon himself who is not accustomed to fear the might of the Lord. Hence the concluding question—Are we stronger than He?—so that we can avert His retributive power?

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Communion with the Lord and in the Lord—such is the fundamental generic idea of the Lord’s Supper. He is in us, and we in Him; and therefore all united together—members of one body, composed of all those who have fellowship with Him. But this communion is not simply one of the Spirit, effected through the word received in faith, by means of which His Spirit bears witness with our spirits that we are the children of God; it is not a purely spiritual one in the sense that Jesus, by His Spirit alone, makes His dwelling in the hearts of all who believe. But it is one which is accomplished also through the body, and includes, likewise, the physical life. It is His atoning life offered up for us—His body broken in death for our sakes—His blood shed in our behalf, of which we partake by means of the bread and wine. And this life of Jesus is imparted to us in its totality, as fitted to nourish, strengthen and refresh our life—in short, as food and drink for our life in its totality; that is, for our new life, which is from God which, begun in Christ at the new birth, is perfected at last in the body also, at the resurrection; for He is the Redeemer of the body (comp. Joh_6:54; Rom_8:11).

But how is this nourishment imparted? This is the point on which the various confessions of the Christian Church begin their strife. If we keep in mind Paul’s expression, “the communion of the body and blood of Christ,” it will be seen that we, by no means, do justice to it by holding the extravagant hypothesis (of the Romish Church) that in virtue of the priestly consecrating word the bread and wine are transformed into the veritable body and blood of Christ; for in that case we could not speak of holding communion [inasmuch as eating the material substance would be a mere physical act, which would be perfect without the concurrence of the Spirit].—Neither does it satisfy simply to assume that the elements are mere symbols—that the body and blood of Christ are exhibited and made present to the consciousness of faith through the bread and wine, and that so by means of these, a communion of the believing participant is effected;—whether it be, as Zwingle supposes, that the believer partook of the broken body and blood shed, by being more fully assured thereby of the forgiveness of sins, or, as Calvin supposes, that a mysterious union ensues for the believer with the glorified life of Christ in heaven. The Apostle’s language, “the bread, the wine, is a communion of the body, of the blood of Christ,” means yet more. If the bread and wine are the means of our communion with the body and blood of Christ, it is obvious that there is a participation in these very objects themselves, as, indeed, in the passage, Joh_11:25 (cited by Meyer), Christ calls Himself the resurrection, and the life, i.e., that very thing by which the life is again restored and imparted, in so far as He is in His own person the life, and the life of humanity again restored.—This brings us, then, to Luther’s view, viz., that of the mysterious union of the elements with the body and blood of Christ, effected through the power of Christ’s Spirit in His Word—a union with His redeeming life, not only as it has been, but as it is now, everywhere present and glorified.

It will, indeed, be asked, “how does this hypothesis suit with the original institution of the Supper, when such a union could not have existed? and are we then to distinguish between the first celebration of the Supper and all others that have ensued?” We must, at all events, affirm, with Œtinger (“Theology drawn from the idea of life,” translated by Hamburger, p. 244), that, as in the case of baptism, so also here, a gradual progression may be traced. “Before Christ died and rose again, the disciples received the flesh and blood of Christ, efficiently (efficienter), rather than substantially (substantialiter); but after the ascension, both substantially and efficiently.”—Through this union the bread and wine become a spiritual meat and drink, i.e., a nourishment of the new spiritual life, which, however, in the case of those not qualified to enjoy it, serves not to nourish, but to condemn—even as the Gospel is to some a savor of life unto life, and to others a savor of death unto death.—This is not the place to treat more particularly of manducatory participation, and of the participation of the unworthy.8

2. Inconsistency of attempting to hold fellowship with the world and Christ at the same time.—To sit down at the table of the Lord, and to commune with Him by partaking of His body and blood, and then to convert aught into an idol, or by idolatrous proceedings to devote one’s self to the god of this world and to his spirits, and so to profess them, are intolerable contradictions. He who dares thus, exposes himself to the severest judgments. By such conduct he violates the holy claims of the Lord to his person, which having been redeemed and honored by Him, with all the blessings of His redemption, belongs to Him exclusively—wholly and solely, even as a bride to the bridegroom. And such conduct involves the greater folly from the fact that Christ is one to whom all power in heaven and earth is given, and before whose bar all must stand to receive the final decision affecting their eternal weal or woe.

[3. The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, a pledge of the resurrection of believers. As the consecrated bread and wine were the authentic symbols of Christ’s body and blood, and were, in construction and certain effect (though not in substance), the same with what they stood for, to all worthy receivers; it is manifest that bodies so incorporated with the body of Christ, must of course be partners with it in a glorious resurrection. Thus was the Eucharist ever considered as a sure and certain pledge to all good men of the future resurrection of then bodies, symbolically fed with the body of Christ. This is the argument which the Christian fathers insisted upon, and with this they prevailed. See Water-land on “The Doctrinal Use of the Sacraments” (Vol. VIII., p. 182). (Wordsworth)].

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Starke:—1Co_10:14. A Christian must be very careful how he, in any way, participates in a false worship (2Co_6:14).—1Co_10:15. A true minister, who is sure of his doctrine, will urge his hearers freely to test its truth, so that they shall feel that they have to do, not so much with him as with God, whose doctrine he preaches. So, too, a proper hearer will look not so much to the minister as to God in the matter of doctrine (2Co_1:24; Act_17:11).—1Co_10:16 (Spener). The doctrine that the bread and wine are the communion of the body and blood of Christ, is to be taken in its plainest acceptation—they are the very means by which the participants take part in the body and blood of Christ. Accordingly, faith is not made the communion or the means of participation, in which case those who approach the table without faith could not be said, in any sense, to receive such blessings; but the bread and the wine are themselves the things. Hence, he who partakes of these comes also into connection with the blessings themselves.—1Co_10:17. Where Christ’s body is there is love, 1Co_12:13.—He who receives the sacrament testifies that he is in the communion of Christ and His Church.—1Co_10:19. To the pure, all things are pure; yet many things may be rendered impure by circumstances. Hence great circumspection is needful to purity.—1Co_10:20. All false worship is a worship of the devil, and those who participate in it shall receive the recompense destined for their lord (Rev_18:4).—1Co_10:21 (Œtinger). There is no profit in serving two masters, and just as little in trying to sponge on them both. If the world’s baits delight, let Christ’s feasts alone (Mat_6:24; Jer_16:8).—1Co_10:22. To be obstinate and imagine that we must keep up acquaintances and friendships, and that God will not be very exacting in the matter, is an abominable presumption, calculated to provoke God’s righteous wrath.—How will God let such miserable sophists run their course till they are made aware of His power (Job_9:4; Job_9:19; Job_37:23)?

Berlenb. Bible:—1Co_10:14. If we are attempting to serve God in the spirit of truth, through the proffered grace of Christ, we shall abandon all idolatry, such as consists in serving God through ceremonial practices and works of the flesh. But then we must be careful to drink often and much of the spiritual drink, and eat the spiritual food. Christ Himself is both these. In Him is everything given to us spiritually and divinely; in Him there is everything to be had freely and without price—everything which cannot be found in this world’s wilderness. He will surely care for soul and body. Therefore flee from Babel, the idolatrous land. When it pursues we must run: otherwise its idols will slip into our hearts.—1Co_10:15. Who has the Spirit of Christ, has also the spirit of a sound judgment. No prudent man will be sure of anything, the ground of whose truth he does not find in himself.—1Co_10:17. True Christians, as members of Christ, constitute one spiritual body, and are nourished by one meat—the body of Jesus. A sweet communion of sanctified spirits ought, in this way, to be established and fostered. Let us be one, even in this, that we have no fellowship with idols.—1Co_10:20. Men often trust their fancies rather than God, and regard it as spiritual pride, as it were, to mount up to Him, and will disoblige none. So it goes, although one does not betake himself to the right source (Psa_36:9; Jer_2:13; Jer_17:13),—1Co_10:21. What does it mean that a person presents himself occasionally at the Lord’s Table, when throughout his whole life Belial is uppermost in his heart! What a pretence to think of satisfying God with the outward forms and postures of a lifeless worship, while we are sacrificing to our own pleasure, and are intent on gratifying our senses with vanity! All who live after the lusts of the flesh eat of the devil’s table.—Those who tread under foot Christ’s body and blood, drink rather of the wine of His wrath, and eat the bread of His anger. But priests who cause the people to sin by their evil example, or by failing to rebuke sin through shameful weakness, and who do not instruct the people sufficiently will be obliged to give an account, not only for themselves, but also for the people they have had in charge.

Heubner:—1Co_10:16. God’s demands are always endorsed by our own consciences.—1Co_10:20. To the Christian all evil is an abomination, because it brings him in contact with the kingdom of evil. Do nothing, however indifferent in itself, if according to the intent anything unrighteous or ungodly is indicated by it.—1Co_10:21. Participation in the Lord’s Supper binds us to strict separation from everything unhallowed, because it implies the most intimate union with Christ. Hence, after communion, a true Christian can hardly divest himself of a certain degree of anxiety.—1Co_10:22. Communion with the unholy is a challenge to Christ, because it is a contempt of His Majesty. Indeed, the thought of our weakness ought to awaken in us a salutary fear of our Almighty Lord.

W. F. Besser:—1Co_10:13. God will indeed protect us; but we can cherish this consolation only when we flee from every occasion to sin, unensnared by the conceit of our steadfastness.—1Co_10:21. Greek and Roman pagans were wont to consecrate a crowned beaker to Bacchus. Is it any less idolatrous when apostate Christians now celebrate the name of a man, some hero of the times, with gluttony and wine-bibbing, with impure jests and buffoonery, and with the tacit denial or uttered blasphemy of God? Oh, how does the world laugh when partakers of Christ’s Table run into the web which the devil spins at his banquets of pleasure. Every observance of the Lord’s Supper ought to impress on us the words of Paul, “Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.” Woe to us if we undertake to do what Christians cannot! The Lord is a jealous bridegroom of His bridal Church, and to put contempt on Him, or to provoke Him to jealousy (Deu_32:21), is to imitate the sin of the children of Israel, who tempted Christ (1Co_10:9).

[Barnes:—1Co_10:20. The custom of drinking toasts at feasts and celebrations arose from this practice of pouring out wine, or drinking in honor of the heathen gods; and is a practice that partakes still of the nature of heathenism. It was one of the abominations of heathenism to suppose that their gods would be pleased with the intoxicating draught. Such a pouring out of a libation was usually accompanied with a prayer to the idol god, that he would accept the offering; that he would be propitious; and that he would grant the desire of the worshipper. From that custom the habit of expressing a sentiment, or proposing a toast, uttered in drinking wine, has been derived. The toast or sentiment which now usually, accompanies the drinking of a glass in this manner, if it means anything, is now also a prayer: but to whom? to the God of wine? to a heathen deity? Can it be supposed that it is a prayer offered to the true God; the God of purity? Has Jehovah directed that prayer should be offered to Him in such a manner? Can it be acceptable to Him? Either the sentiment is unmeaning, or it is a prayer offered to a heathen god, or it is a mockery of Jehovah; and in either case it is improper and wicked. And it may as truly be said now of Christians as in the time of Paul, ‘Ye cannot consistently drink the cup of the Lord at the communion table, and the cup where a prayer is offered to a false god, or to the dead, or to the air; or when, if it means anything, it is a mockery of Jehovah? Now can a Christian with any more consistency or propriety join in such celebrations, and in such unmeaning or profane libations than his could go into the temple of an idol, and partake of the idolatrous celebrations there?

Hodge:—1Co_10:20. It was of great importance for the Corinthians to know that it did not depend on their intention whether they came into communion with devils. The heathen did not intend to worship devils, and yet they did it; what would it avail, therefore, to 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 was the import and effect of their conduct. A man 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 intention. This principle applies with all its force to compliance with the religious services of the heathen at the present day. 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 devils, as the nominal Christians of Corinth, who, although they knew that an idol was nothing, and that there is but one God, yet frequented the heathen feasts. The same principle also applies to the compliance of Protestants in the religious observances of Papists. Whatever their intention may be, they worship the host if they bow down to it with the crowd who intend to adore it. By the force of the act we become one with those in whose worship we join. We constitute with them and with the objects of their worship one communion].

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10:14-22 Paul warns his readers against anything that might be interpreted as idolatry (cp. 1 Jn 5:21), which includes eating food in honor of a pagan god.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 10:14. Ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρείας, from idolatry) The consequent [idolatry] is put for the antecedent [things offered to idols], with a view the more to deter the Corinthians from indulging in this sin: i.e. avoid things offered to idols, and the religious use of them, in so far as they are things offered to idols. Having premised this caution in the 23d ver., he shows that the use of those things in a civil point of view is indeed lawful, but still they ought to be used with great caution.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_10:14. Διόπερ] for this very reason (1Co_8:13), to wit, in order that you may not withdraw from this saving guidance of the faithful God, and deprive yourselves of it; idolatry would separate you from God. Comp 1Co_10:22. And they would make themselves indirectly guilty of idolatry by partaking of the sacrificial feasts. See 1Co_10:7; 1Co_10:20 f. As respects φεύγειν ἀπό, fugiendo discedere a, see on Mat_3:7. Rückert would draw a distinction here to the effect that, had the verb been joined with the accusative (1Co_6:18), it would have indicated that the readers were already involved in idolatrous worship; but this is untenable (2Ti_2:22; Wis_1:5; Plato, Legg. i. p. 636 E; Soph. Phil. 637, Oed. R. 355), being a confusion of the phrase in question with φεύγειν ἐκ (Xen. Anab. i. 2. 18; Tob_1:18). The precise meaning here must be sought in the context, which certainly gives us only the idea of the danger being at hand (1Co_10:7).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 10:14 gives the final point to all that has been urged, from 1Co 10:1 onwards: the sad fate of the Israelite fathers, the correspondence between their trials and those of the Cor [1484] readers, the possibility of effectual resistance, and the certain relief to which the Divine fidelity is pledged these considerations combine to enforce the appeal, Flee from idolatry ; cf. 1Co 6:18 a , and note. διόπερ , as in 1Co 8:13 (see note), points with emphatic finger along the line of past history; ἀγαπητοί ( cf. 1Co 4:14 ) reinforces admonition with entreaty.

[1484] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Proof that Attendance on Sacrificial Feasts in a Heathen Temple Is Idolatry 1Co_10:14-22

This whole discussion arose out of the question whether it was lawful to eat the sacrifices offered to idols. Paul, while admitting that there was nothing wrong in eating of such meat, exhorts the Corinthians to abstain for the sake of their weaker brethren. There was another reason for this abstinence; they might be led into idolatry. By going to the verge of the allowable, they might be drawn into the sinful. There was great danger that the Corinthians, convinced that an idol was nothing, might be induced to join the sacrificial feasts within the precincts of the temples. The danger was the greater, because such feasts, if held in a private house, lost their religious character, and might be attended without scruple. To convince his readers, that if the feast was held in a temple, attendance upon it was an act of idolatry, is the object of this section. The apostles argument is from analogy. Attendance on the Lords Supper is an act of communion with Christ, the object of Christian worship, and with all those who unite with us in the service. From its very nature, it brings all who partake of the bread and wine into fellowship with Christ and with one another, 1Co_10:14-17. The same is true of Jewish sacrifices. Whoever eats of those sacrifices, is thereby brought into communion with the object of Jewish worship. The act is in its nature an act of worship, 1Co_10:18. The conclusion is too plain to need being stated those who join in the sacrificial feasts of the heathen, join in the worship of idols. Such is the import of the act, and no denial on the part of those who perform it can alter its nature. It is not to be inferred from this mode of reasoning, that the objects of heathen worship are what the heathen suppose them to be. Because Paul argued that, as partaking of the Lords Supper is an act of Christian worship, partaking of an idol-feast must be an act of heathen worship, it is not to be inferred that he regarded Jupiter or Juno as much real beings as Christ is. Far from it. What the heathen sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons; and therefore, to partake of their sacrifices under circumstances which gave religious significance to the act, brought them into communion with demons, 1Co_10:19, 1Co_10:20. The two things are incompatible. A man cannot be a worshipper of Christ and a worshipper of demons, or in communion with the one while in communion with the other. Going to the Lords table is a renunciation of demons; and going to the table of demons is a renunciation of Christ, 1Co_10:21. By this conduct the jealousy of the Lord would be excited against them, as of old it was excited against the Jews who turned aside after false gods, 1Co_10:22.

1Co_10:14

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

Wherefore, i.e. 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 dearly beloved. Paul addresses them in terms of affection, although his epistle is so full of serious admonition and warning. Flee from idolatry, i.e. avoid it by fleeing from it. This is the only safe method of avoiding sin. Its presence is malarious. The only safety is keeping at a distance. This includes two things; first, avoiding what is questionable; that is, every thing which lies upon the border of what is allowable, or which approaches the confines of sin; and secondly, avoiding the occasion and temptations to sin; keeping at a distance from every thing which excites evil passion, or which tends to ensnare the soul.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Resuming the argument, Co1 10:7; Co1 8:9-10.

flee--Do not tamper with it by doubtful acts, such as eating idol meats on the plea of Christian liberty. The only safety is in wholly shunning whatever borders on idolatry (Co2 6:16-17). The Holy Spirit herein also presciently warned the Church against the idolatry, subsequently transferred from the idol feast to the Lord's Supper itself, in the figment of transubstantiation.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 14. Therefore - flee from idolatry.] This is a trial of no great magnitude; to escape from so gross a temptation requires but a moderate portion of grace and circumspection.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

14. Wherefore, my beloved, flee, etc. The Apostle now returns to the particular question, from which he had for a little digressed, for, lest bare doctrine should have little effect among them, he has introduced those general exhortations that we have read, but now he pursues the discussion on which he had entered — that it is not allowable for a Christian man to connect himself with the superstitions of the wicked, so as to take part in them. Flee, says he, from idolatry In the first place, let us observe what meaning he attaches to the term Idolatry He certainly did not suspect the Corinthians of such a degree of ignorance or carelessness as to think, that they worshipped idols in their heart. But as they made no scruple of frequenting the assemblies of the wicked, and observing along with them certain rites instituted in honor of idols, he condemns this liberty taken by them, as being a very bad example. It is certain, then, that when he here makes mention of idolatry, he, speaks of what is outward, or, if you prefer it, of the profession of idolatry. For as God is said to be worshipped by the bending of the knee, and other tokens of reverence, while the principal and genuine worship of him is inward, so is it also as to idols, for the case holds the same in things opposite. It is to no purpose that very many in the present day endeavor to excuse outward actions on this pretext, that the heart is not in them, while Paul convicts of idolatry those very acts, and assuredly with good reason. For, as we owe to God not merely the secret affection of the heart, but also outward adoration, the man who offers to an idol an appearance of adoration takes away so much of the honor due to God. Let him allege as he may that his heart is quite away from it. The action itself is to be seen, in which the honor that is due to God is transferred to an idol.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(14) Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.—These words show that through all the previous argument and warning the writer had in view the particular dangers arising from their contact with the heathen world, and especially the partaking in the sacrificial feasts. Not because they were enemies, but because they are his “beloved” he had written thus to them. Because God is a faithful God—because He makes it possible for you to escape these dangers and sins—flee from idolatry. Do not be trying how near you can get to it, but rather how far you can get from it.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry] A return to the main argument in ch. 8. An idol is nothing, and meats offered to idols are nothing; but idolatry is a deadly sin, and so also is whatever tends to promote it.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Wherefore, my dearly beloved,.... Some copies add, "brethren"; as do the Complutensian edition, and Ethiopic version; all which endearing epithets are used to persuade to attend to the exhortation enforced upon the foregoing considerations; since the Jewish fathers, who were idolaters, fell so much under the divine displeasure; and since such who thought they stood were so liable to fall, and the temptation to which they exposed themselves was of such a dangerous consequence; therefore,

flee from idolatry; as what is most dishonourable, pernicious, and abominable: the apostle's meaning is, not only that they would not worship idols, or commit plain downright acts of idolatry; but that they would stand at the greatest distance from idols, not so much as go into an idol's temple, and there sit down and eat; which if not a real act of idolatry, had at least the show of one; and his sense is, that they would abstain from all appearance of idolatry, from every occasion of it, and whatsoever led unto it; particularly he means, that they would not eat of things sacrificed to idols as such, and in an idol's temple; which he considers as a species of idolatrous worship, and by a similar instance he after proves it to be so, even a partaking of the table of devils.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

Ver. 14. Flee from idolatry] He calleth their sitting at the idol’s feasts, though without intent of honouring the idol, by the name of idolatry; because, 1. Hereby they yielded a tacit consent to that sin. 2. Petty matters pave a causey for the greater.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Wherefore - In view of the dangers and temptations that beset you; in view of your own feebleness and the perils to which you would be exposed in the idol temples, etc.

Flee from idolatry - Escape from the service of idols; from the feasts celebrated in honor of them; from the temples where they are worshipped. This was one of the dangers to which they were especially exposed; and Paul therefore exhorts them to escape from everything that would have a tendency to lead them into this sin. He had told them, indeed, that God was faithful; and yet he did not expect that God would keep them without any effort of their own. He therefore exhorts them to flee from all approaches to it, and from all the customs which would have a tendency to lead them into idolatrous practices. He returns, therefore, in this verse, to the particular subject discussed in 1Co 8:1-13 - the propriety of partaking of the feasts in honor of idols; and shows the danger which would follow such a practice. That danger he sets forth in view of the admonitions contained in this chapter, from 1Co 10:1 to 1Co 10:12. The remainder of the chapter is occupied with a discussion of the question stated in 1Co 8:1-13, whether it was right for them to partake of the meat which was used in the feasts of idolaters.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

There are various kinds of idolatry. It is the perfection of Angels never to err: it is a human imperfection to fall into error, but a diabolical crime, so to love our error, as to divide the Church by schism, or leave it by heresy: this love of self is the most dangerous idolatry.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The apostle would have them avoid all sin, but idolatry more especially, keeping at the utmost distance imaginable from that, being of all sins in its kind the greatest transgression; upon which account it is often in Scripture compared to whoredom. Though we ought to be afraid of and to decline all sin; yet as God hath revealed his wrath against any particular sin more than other, so every good Christian is obliged more to detest and abhor that sin. How the Corinthians were concerned in this caution, we shall read afterwards, 1Co 10:20. For though idolatry be properly where the failure is in the ultimate or mediate object of our worship, and the creature is made either the ultimate term of our worship, or the medium in and by which we worship the Creator; yet there are many other ways by which we may be partakers of the sins of others, and this sin of idolatry in particular: and idolatry being a sin of the greatest magnitude, from which they were bound to keep the furthest distance, they were bound to take heed of being partakers of other men’s sins of this kind.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

14. Wherefore—As an inference from all the above warnings, 1Co_9:24-27, and 1Co_10:1-13.

Idolatry—Which resumes the thread of thought from 1Co_8:13, touching idol offerings, and continues it to 1Co_11:1.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Wherefore. As a result of the whole reasoning, which has been meant to inspire the weak with a more liberalizing knowledge, and the strong with a more fraternal sympathy. Dearly beloved. The word "dearly" should be omitted. Flee from idolatry. The original implies that they were to turn their backs on idolatry, and so fly from it.

Vers. 14-33.

Argument.further enforced; fellowship with Christ by means of the communion; idolatrous feasts a communion with demons; law, expediency, conscience.

"Wherefore," says St. Paul, as a deduction from the foregoing argument, "my dearly beloved," his heart kindled anew towards his brethren, "flee from idolatry. This dread of idolatry is the key to what follows. Idolatry, in those days, was a sin that included all sins, and Corinth was behind no city in the charm and splendour it threw around this iniquity. Bodily indulgences of the worst sort were notorious. Throughout Greece, Corinth was the common synonym of the most shameful vices, and that too, not in despite of idolatry, but as a constituent of religious worship, especially of Venus. Art among the Greeks had done its utmost to destroy the uglier features of the old heathenism, had called beauty and culture into the service of the priests and the ceremonial of the temples, and had succeeded in making the aesthetic a reproach to pure taste and a mocking insult to every moral virtue. Corinth was a leading centre of all the corrupting and lascivious influence of idolatry, and hence St. Paul"s tender and fervent entreaty, "My dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." The connection with his foregoing argument is clear. If the athlete must subject himself to a severe and protracted discipline; if God"s elect race so largely perished in the wilderness by reason of transgression; if any and every temptation may be successfully resisted, so that neither the throng of evil doers nor the show and fascination of a pompons idol worship can be an excuse for sin; with what force could he urge, "Flee from idolatry"! St. Paul knew the strength of his appeal. And he credited these Corinthians with insight sufficient to see this strength, for he bade them hear him "as wise men," and "judge" what he said. Is he satisfied to leave the argument at this stage? Observation of current facts, historical examples preserved from oblivion for their warning, God"s faithfulness, have been brought to bear on the question; and yet, so far from being content to dismiss the subject, he resumes it with new vigour of thought and a deepened intensity of emotion. The language changes. Few or no metaphoric words occur. Throughout the paragraph, it is the vocabulary of pure feeling and impassioned earnestness that he employs, for the imagination has retired from its task and left the heart to consummate the work. he begins with the sacrament of the Lord"s Supper, binding the argument to the point whence he had digressed at the opening of the ninth chapter. "This liberty of yours," he had said, "might prove ruinous to weak brethren "for whom Christ died, and therefore such an abuse of freedom was a sin "against the brethren" and a "sin against Christ." What is the special connection of the Lord"s Supper with the completion of the argument? Obviously the position it occupies in the logic of the case is one of eminence, St. Paul having reserved it for his conclusion. It would seem that he had before his mind one particular and engrossing idea in relation to the Supper, which, although perfectly consistent with other ideas of the sacrament, and, indeed, essential to their import, was detached at the moment and set forth with very distinct and commanding prominence. It is the idea of the communion. "Cup of blessing," "bread which we break," the thanksgiving, the faith and love exercised, the recollected obligations, the spiritual conception of "the blood" and "the body of Christ" as means of an inward holiness; are not these a communication, a participation, an entering into Christ"s death, a true and real fellowship with him as "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world"? If so, it means separation from all evil compliances and from all dangerous associations. "Separate from sinners" was a distinguishing fact in Christ"s life;" not only "holy, harmless, undefiled," but, by his separation from men, exhibiting in the fullest and most effective way the three characteristics mentioned. Near, very near, to all about him, and yet the nearer he was the further removed he stood in the dignity of his person and the exclusiveness of his office, so that the mysterious awe which invested him was profoundly felt by his friends even while ignorant of his nature and mediatorship as Son of God and Son of man, and on various occasions acknowledged by his enemies. And this separateness appeared even more conspicuously in his vicarious and propitiatory death. His life was a new revelation of life; his death was a new revelation of death. "Separate" was that death from all deaths actual and possible. He spoke of it as he never spake of aught else involving himself. He had feelings concerning it that he never indicated as touching other personal interests. For its loneliness and secret agony, for its public dishonour and humiliation, for its apparent triumph of his foes and its seeming discomfiture of himself, for its Jewish and Roman and world wide aspects, for its self sacrifice, for it as the divinely ordained means to reconcile God to man and man to God, he prepared himself as one who realized the infiniteness of the act. Previously to the great passion hour, nature had given him, of her own accord, no recognition of his Divine majesty. It was his act, not hers, when miracles transpired. But, at his death, she put forth the power of her attestation to the fact that he was "separate from sinners," and by the darkness, and the earthquake, and the opened graves, and the rent veil, signified that, "Truly this man was the Son of God." Now, in St. Paul"s view, partaking of the Lord"s Supper is partaking spiritually of the blood and body of Christ, and if so, it is communion with him, the communion a special form of confessing him, a particular and most solemn act of acknowledging him as our Redeemer and Lord, in a word, a sacrament. Wine and bread are symbols; but the sacrament must not be limited to ordinary symbolism. It is a fact, a vital and absolute fact, a Divine reality, to the believer"s soul, a spiritual realization of Christ. Nothing magical and superstitious, nothing mechanical, nothing that derives virtue from priest and ceremonials in the form of sacerdotal consecration, belongs to its nature, use, and end. It is simple, it is personal to the faith and love of the humble disciples of the cross, it is sublime because so perfectly spiritual in the union and fellowship with Christ which it is intended to secure. But is this all? By no means; it is communion and fellowship among believers. "We are all partakers of that one bread." Now, there are common ties among Christians that grow out of their relation to one another in Christ considered as Son of man. If he was Philanthropist, Benefactor, Friend, Healer, Teacher, Inspirer, he has left us an example that we should follow in his steps, and this example is beautifully potent when we cooperate in these beneficent duties. Yet there is a higher expression of our union when we partake of the Lord"s Supper, since this recognizes his atoning death as the bond that makes us one. And as Christ"s works of power and mercy throughout Galilee and Judaea went forward and attained their fullest manifestation in the atonement of Calvary, so our sympathies with one another and harmonious activity in daily acts of kindness must be ratified and scaled by being "partakers of that one bread." Jesus said, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." No such drawing power did he claim for his miracles, nor for other marvellous forces that radiated in every direction from him as the great Centre of blessing in his day to the poor, the diseased, the demoniac. Where he is mightiest we are most mighty; for it pleased him, in varying the manifestations of his omnipotence and adapting them to the different instincts of man as he dealt one by one with these primal qualities, it pleased him, we say, to leave similar channels of activity for us to occupy. Therefore it is that the cross lifts us up into a higher companionship with one another. Even in common life, there is no such reconciler as death. A corpse in a divided household is a peace maker. We are all brothers at a funeral. The presence of death lingers not in the senses, nor pauses in the imagination, nor rests in the understanding, but goes down into the great original instincts, where the sense of humanity lies embedded under the shadow of the infinite. Of what immeasurable value, then, is the death of Christ as a uniting influence in behalf of brotherhood! And what an appeal the communion makes to that social sentiment which is so precious to Christianity! And who can go in a devout frame of mind to the table of the Lord without feeling that "life"s poor distinctions vanish here," without a larger consciousness of the Divine loveliness of forbearance, and of patience with others, and of forgiveness of enemies, and of the blessedness unspeakable and full of glory in charity when charity as "the greatest" possesses intellect, heart, and life? God be praised for such hours! Finer spheres than sun and planets measure their coming, their stay, and. their going. Nor does the argument rest at this point. "To partake of a Jewish sacrifice as a sacrifice, and in a holy place, was an act of Jewish worship" (Hodge). Here are "our fathers," "Israel after the flesh," and they were "partakers of the altar;" and here are we, to whom "the ages" have brought their light and privileges and been perfected in the epoch of Christianity, and who "are all partakers of that one bread." Shall we be found feasting in idol temples? This is heathenish idolatry, this is communion with devils, this is fatal to brotherhood, this is treachery to the Lord Jesus Christ. What do I say? Do I declare that the idol is anything or the sacrifice anything? I, Paul, say to you, that ye cannot "drink the cup" consecrated to the Lord and "drink the cup" consecrated by the heathen to their demons deities to the Gentiles, evil spirits to Jews and Christians. For this use of the cup is an acknowledgment of fellowship with these "evil spirits," and a fraternization with their worshippers. Such conduct is utterly unjustifiable; it will "provoke the Lord to jealousy," and to a jealousy like that when wedded love has proved faithless to its holy vow. And can ye Corinthians withstand such a devouring flame of anger? Then he recurs to the statement made in 1Co_6:12, "All things are lawful," etc., and reaffirms the ethical principle of restraint on personal liberty. And with the mightier impulse which has just accented its deep tones of warning, the thought of expediency widens its application. What is the great tap root of all our evils? Selfishness. And this selfishness assumes manifold forms, intellectual and social, physical and commercial. Subtle one moment and palpable the next; disguised and then open; endless in shifts and turns; inexhaustible in resources; skilled in every variety of means; sharp, vigilant, unwearied; its five senses multiplied in its unnumbered agents; what save Christianity, would entertain such a hope of the human race as to warrant the strong utterance, "Let no man seek his own, but every man another"s wealth"? This is laying the axe to the root of the gigantic tree with its trunk and branches. Anything less than unselfish love will not satisfy the argument at this stage. Whither has the fiery logician been? Where has he arrested his course and paused to meditate and analyze? The death of Christ and the memorials of that death, fellowship with his sufferings, communion with the "great High Priest that is passed into the heavens;" and, along with this theme, the communion with brethren and the burdening sense of that unity of believers which all great souls aspire to, but have to mourn over as a postponed reality; such were the truths that had engaged the strength of his intellect and the ardour of his feelings. Could he tolerate the idea of one making himself the supreme object of consideration? Could he think of a man in Christ shutting himself out of the very heart of Christ? Only in such words as these can he appease the yearnings of his nature: "Let no man seek his own, but every man another"s wealth." Suppose, then, that these Corinthian Christians were at a private feast, enjoying the hospitality of a friend; would it be proper for the man of scruples to inquire into the meats? Nay, this is not a "communion," though a social union, and hence you are at liberty to eat; "asking no question for conscience sake." Sentiment has its obligations no less than conscience, and, in fact, conscience is honoured when you remember that "the earth is the Lord"s, and the fulness thereof." If, however, some one says to you, "This is offered in sacrifice unto idols," the matter takes another aspect. For the sake of a brother guest whose scruples are wide awake, do not eat. It is his conscience that your conscience is to respect, and therefore abstain. If a weak brother were to ask you to do something or avoid something for the sake of his conscience that your own conscience would not suffer you to do or to forbear, resist him and by no means comply. Weakness may be yielded to simply as the infirmity of another, but if it become dogmatic and aggressive, seeking to impose its restraints on our convictions, Christianity never requires of us to submit to such meddling dictation. Condescension to an infirm mind is very proper and commendable, provided it do not make us infirm. Easy compliances of this lax sort are dangerous snares. In the one case, the compliance is on principle; in the other, the non compliance is on principle; and, in each instance, conscience is upheld. Then the apostle rises again to a broad, general truth, "Do all to the glory of God." For this statement, that extends the sentiment of a spiritual mind over all duties, he had already prepared the way. Twice had he said, "The earth is the Lord"s, and the fulness thereof," and, in the third chapter of the Epistle, he had declared, "All is yours." We are not like trees that can only grow in certain soils and climates. We are not like animals that are found exclusively on this or that continent. We are not creatures limited to their immediate surroundings. To form a human soul, a world and a universe of worlds are needed. Influences acting on us are not counted and tabulated by the intellect of the senses. These senses shut us up in the body. They are for today and for appropriating what is at hand. Intellect is under stern limitations. Yet the sphere of the inner life is for ever widening beyond the sphere of sensuous existence, and on the eves of "three score and ten" the stars shine with a home light unknown to young manhood, Growth is within, but there is no self nutrition. All the materials that nourish and build up the man come from without, and, hence, it is not by looking merely at ourselves and our capacities, but by regarding the world and the universe as furnishing the occasions and supplying the means of development, that we learn to measure our ability by the grace of God stored up in all things for our enrichment. Where we are interprets what we are. Now, in view of this, St. Paul lays down the principle, "Whether... ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." The range is immense; the world is not to be cut up into fragments, and the "glory of God" identified solely with them; but, as the primary condition of glorifying him, we are to believe that his Divine presence is in whatever he has created. There is nothing speculative and remote in this doctrine. How are we to glorify God? By being most truly human; by realizing that others are a part of ourselves and we a part of them; by acting on the truth that individuality attains its perfection in brotherhood; and therefore we should "please all men in all things." Nothing selfish must appear in it; "not seeking mine own profit." Nothing of effeminacy, nothing of calculating acquiescence, must taint its purity, and we must please others for their profit, that they may be saved.

L.

Vers. 14-22.

Wariness in Christian walk.

A burning question amongst Corinthian Christians was whether they were justified in partaking of sacrifices offered to idols. With this the apostle deals in several parts of these Epistles. Note the course of his argument here.

I HE LIFTS THE VEIL FROM IDOLATRY. He is quite willing to allow that an idol is nothing in itself, and that meats offered to an idol are in themselves as though they had not been so offered. But he thrusts upon the attention the startling truth that, when men professedly sacrifice to idols, they really sacrifice to devils. "They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not". (Deu_32:17)

1. The character of many of the heathen deities was Satanic. The conception of the worshippers was largely a conception of the character of devils.

2. Paganism is a part of the Satanic kingdom. It is not of the true God, and what is not of him is of the devil. There are but two masters. Pagan worship is the worship of the false, and the false is of Satan, not of God. Behind every idol, because it is an idol, lurks a devil. The dumb image and the supposed deity associated with it are but masks hiding the face of the fiend. An idol is nothing; yes, but "nothings" are generally the veils of very palpable "somethings." Beware of the nothings of life; they are most dangerous because least dreaded.

3. When any objects are worshipped in the place of God, the devil kingdom is served. Idolatry of whatever sort involves "sacrifice to devils." All sin is homage and offering to Satan, the "god of this world." The truth applies when pure things, as well as when impure, are substituted for God. Satanic interests are advanced; a sacrifice is laid upon the altar of darkness.

II HE SHOWS WHAT PARTAKING OF HEATHEN SACRIFICES INVOLVES.

1. To all. As the sacrifice is virtually offered to devils, partaking of it when it is in the form of a sacrifice this would not apply to meat sold in the shambles (ver. 25) or to meat at a friend"s house (ver. 27) involves fellowship with devils. Established by reference to:

(1) Jewish sacrifices. Those who partook of these sacrifices identified themselves with Jehovah and his altar. To partake of Jewish sacrifices was to proclaim one"s self a Jew and a follower of Israel"s God. So to partake of sacrifices offered to devils was to identify one"s self with the service of devils and to have communion with them.

(2) The Lord"s Supper. When the bread and wine are partaken of, there is a profession of attachment to him whose flesh and blood are thus set forth of fellowship with him, of association in his service, of union with him. The union set forth is so close that it unites those who gather at the table (ver. 17). The Lord"s Supper pre-eminently identifies us with Christ. At his table we may look for the closest fellowship. Similarly at the table of devils men are closely associated with these evil spirits.

2. To Christians specially. It is an attempt to serve God and his greatest enemies. This is what it amounts to really, though not necessarily with full realization of the fact on the part of the participants.

(1) A moral impossibility. Ye cannot serve two masters, especially masters diametrically opposed. cannot drink," etc. (ver. 21).

(2) A horrible spectacle. That those who have been so near to Christ should get correspondingly near to Satan and his angels. That as they have been to their Lord, so will they be to his foes.

(3) A great provocation to the Lord. Our God is "a jealous God" (ver. 22). Men might plead that they did not even think of idols or devils whilst they partook. But it was a public act, and God would regard its true import. A great provocation that his people should do this outwardly; and the outward would surely affect the inward sooner or later.

(4) An act of great folly. Running into extreme danger. "Can a man touch pitch and not be defiled?" We should not see how near we may get to sin, but how far we may keep away. The exercise of our "liberty" may lead us to bondage. Tempting God; " Are we stronger than he?" (ver. 22). H.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Flee from idolatry - And from all approaches to it.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Conduct toward the Weak.

A reference to the Lord’s Supper:

v. 14. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

v. 15. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

v. 16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

v. 17. For we being many are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.

The first sentences are in the nature of a transition between the two sections of the chapter. The sad fate of the Israelites in the wilderness, the resemblance between their trials and those of the Corinthian Christians, the possibility of offering effective resistance to all temptations, and the certain relief which we may expect from our faithful God: all these facts combine to give weight and emphasis to the appeal to flee from idolatry, which is at the basis of all sinning. Paul is deeply moved, and he intends his appeal to make a deep impression upon his readers since he addresses them as his "beloved. " But he now leads over to the other thought, that of the necessity of keeping the Holy Communion unpolluted. Like a challenge his words ring out: As to men of sense I speak; judge yourselves what I say. He has warned them against a security based upon false knowledge; he here asks them to apply their spiritual wisdom in the proper way, since the matter which he is about to broach pertains to those things which the spiritual person may well judge, chap. 2:15. They are intelligent, they are clever, they are shrewd: therefore he has unlimited faith in his being able to entrust such a palpable truth to their decision.

The mystery of the Eucharist: The cup of blessing which we bless, which we, in the Holy Communion, set apart by prayer for a holy use, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break (after likewise pronouncing the prayer of praise and thanksgiving over it), is it not the communion of the body of Christ? The entire passage breathes the consciousness, the certainty, of Christian fellowship, first with Christ, in whom they participate through the wine and the bread, and secondly with the other communicants, who partake of the same bread and of the same cup. We have here the essence of the Lord’s Supper in one sentence: There are the earthly, visible elements, bread and wine; there are the invisible blessings, the real presence of the body and blood of Christ; the heavenly gifts are present in, with, and under the earthly elements, for there is a communion of the two, in either case, and nothing is said of a change or transubstantiation; the communion is with Christ, as the Author and Finisher of our salvation. There is no sacramental presence outside of the Sacrament; it is necessary that bread and wine be blessed and then partaken of in accordance with Christ’s institution in order that the real presence be effective; he that partakes of the bread partakes of the body of Christ; and he that partakes of the cup partakes of the blood of Christ. "As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread. We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, by reason of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show."

The communion, the oneness, of the believers with Christ, through the Eucharist, is brought out: For one bread, one body, we many are, for of the one bread we partake. It is the very closest relationship, the most vital fellowship which Paul here states to be existing. All communicants partake of that one bread which is the communion of the body of Christ, and therefore they are most intimately united, not only with Christ, but also with one another; the fellowship of the believers is brought out with the greatest emphasis by the words of Paul. At the same time it may be noted that the hypocrites and unbelievers that come to the table of the Lord, unknown to the congregation as such, partake of the body and blood of Christ in and with the bread and wine, but they do not really partake of the Holy Communion, for their unbelief excludes them from the communion of saints, and they receive the body of Christ as their Judge and the Sacrament unto their damnation, 1Co 11:29.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Here our apostle resumes his exhortation to the Corinthians, not to meddle with the mysteries of paganism, nor to eat of things offered unto idols; assuring them it was no less than idolatry, in the account of God, to eat of those things which were taken from their execrable altars, as a part and remnant of those sacrifices to idols, which were performed in the city of Corinth with all the pomp of an abominable superstition. This participation of things offered to idols, in the idol-temples, our apostle calls idolatry: Wherefore, my beloved brethren, flee from idolatry.

Here note, That the nature of man is extremely prone to idolatry, and very ready to comply with men in their idolatrous practices.

Note, 2. That the idolatry of the Jews of old, and of Christians since, who know and owned the true God, and gloried in him, was and is far worse than the idolatry of pagans, who knew him not, nor ever gloried in him.

Observe farther, How our apostle appeals to themselves, and leaves it to them to judge whether they did not do very ill, to be present at the feasts upon the heathen sacrifices, and eat of things offered unto idols: he leaves it to themselves to judge, Judge ye what I say.

There is a judgment of discretion which persons ought to use in matters of religion, and not to deliver up themselves blindfold to the conduct of their teachers. The church of Rome by denying the people this liberty, make them slaves; they put out the people’s eyes, to make them fit for a blind obedience. Our apostle was far from this practice. Let wise men, says he, judge what I say.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry .

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

14. Flee from idolatry. In idolatry, the greatest temptations at Corinth were combined, lust, drinking, reveling, etc. The way to avoid all these was to flee it. Sin must not be dallied with, but shunned.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul continues to remind them to be pure and to stay away from idolatry and immorality as he talks about communion, which represents the blood and body of Christ.

run away from idolatry

Paul is speaking of the practice of worshiping idols as if it were a physical thing like a dangerous animal. AT: "do all you can to get away from worshiping idols" (See: Metaphor)

The cup of blessing

Paul is speaking of God's blessing as though it were the wine in the cup used in the ritual of the Lord's Supper. (See: Metaphor)

that we bless

"for which we thank God"

is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ?

Paul is reminding the Corinthians of what they already know, that the cup of wine that we share represents us sharing in the blood of Christ. AT: "we share in the blood of Christ." (See: Rhetorical Question)

The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?

Paul is reminding the Corinthians of what they already know. AT: "We share in the body of Christ when we share bread." (See: Rhetorical Question)

a sharing in

"taking part in" or "equally participating with others in"

loaf of bread

a single unit of baked bread that is sliced or broken into pieces before it is eaten

translationWords

beloved

false god

judge

bless

blood

bread

body

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

14. διόπερ. A return to the main argument in ch. 8. See ch. 1Co 8:13.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14.] Conclusion from the above warning examples: idolatry is by all means to be shunned; not tampered with, but fled from.

φεύγετε ἀπό (‘fugiendo discedite a,’ Meyer) expressing even more strongly than the accus, with φεύγω, the entire avoidance. This verse of itself would by inference forbid the Corinthians having any share in the idol feasts; but he proceeds to ground such prohibition on further special considerations.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14-22. The Lord’s Supper and the Jewish sacrifices may convince you of the fact that to participate in a sacrificial feast is to participate in worship. Therefore, avoid all idol feasts, which are a worship of demons.

14 Yes, God provides escapes from temptations, and so my affection for you moves me to urge you to escape from temptation to idolatry; avoid all contact with it. 15 I appeal to your good sense; you are capable of judging for yourselves whether my arguments are sound.

16 The cup of the blessing, on which we invoke the benediction of God in the Lord’s Supper, is it not a means of communion in the Blood-shedding of Christ? The bread which we break there, is it not a means of communion in the Body of Christ? 17 Because the many broken pieces are all one bread, we, the assembled many, are all one body; for we, the whole congregation, have with one another what comes from the one bread. 18 Here is another parallel. Consider the Israelites, as we have them in history with their national ritual. Is it not a fact that those Israelites who eat the prescribed sacrifices enter into fellowship with the altar of sacrifice, and therefore with Him whose altar it is? The altar unites them to one another and to Him. 19 You ask me what I imply by that. Not, of course, that there is any real sacrifice to an idol, or that there is any real idol, such as the heathen believe in. 20 But I do imply that the sacrifices which the heathen offer they offer to demons and to a no-god: and I do not wish you to enter into fellowship with the company of demons. 21 Is my meaning still not plain? It is simply impossible that you should drink of a cup that brings you into communion with the Lord and of a cup that brings you into communion with demons; that you should eat in common with others at the table of the Lord and at the table of demons. 22 Or do we think so lightly of this, that we persist in doing just what the Israelites did in the wilderness,—provoking the Lord to jealousy by putting Him on a level with demons? Are we able, any more than they were, to defy Him with impunity?

14. Διόπερ. Here and 8:13 only ‘Wherefore, my beloved ones (the affectionate address turns the command into an entreaty), flee right away from idolatry.’ Flight is the sure ἔκβασις in all such temptations, and they have it in their own power: all occasions must be shunned. They must not deliberately go into temptation and then expect deliverance. They must not try how near they can go, but how far they can fly. Fugite idolatriam: omnem utique et totam (Tert. De Cor. 10). This might seem a hard saying to some of them, especially after expecting a wide measure of liberty, and he softens it with ἀγαπητοί μου. It is his love for them that makes him seem to be severe and compels him to lay down this rule. Cf. 15:58; 2Co 7:1; Php 2:12, etc. St Paul more commonly has the simple accusative after φεύγειν (6:18; 1Ti 6:11; 2Ti 2:22), and it is not clear that φεύγειν ἀπό, which is more common in Gospels and Rev., is a stronger expression. The accusative would not have implied that the Corinthians were already involved in idolatry: that would require ἐκ.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Idolatry. Notice the article : the idolatry, the temptation of which is constantly present in the idol - feasts.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vv. 14, 15. “Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee far from idolatry. 15. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.”

The address so full of tenderness: my dearly beloved, expresses how much it costs him to be obliged to impose on them a sacrifice which he knows to be so painful.

Διόπερ, precisely on this account: because you can reckon on God’s help in the temptations which He appoints to you Himself, but not in others.

The expression: flee far from, is certainly used designedly. In a similar passage, 1Co 6:18, Paul had used the verb flee simply with the substantive as its object. If he here interposes the preposition ἀπό, far from, it is to tell them, not only to flee idolatry itself (that would have been superfluous), but to flee far from all that approaches it or might lead them into it. The sacrificial feasts were not quite idolatry, but they bordered on it and might lead to a fall into it.

Vv. 15. Then he appeals to their own judgment. For he would have the decision to proceed from their conscience. The Corinthians boast of wisdom; he appeals to this very wisdom. The second proposition of this verse has sometimes been taken as the object of the verb of the first: “I pray you as intelligent people to judge what I say.” But it is much more natural to take as the object of the verb I say the whole argument which follows in the passage, 1Co 10:16-22 : “I proceed to expound my thought to you; judge yourselves what I advance.” On the term φημί, see on 1Co 7:29. He would impose nothing on them; but he proceeds to submit to them certain premisses which they cannot gainsay, and from which there will follow a consequence, which they cannot refuse, without rejecting those premisses themselves.

The following passage rests on these principles: that any religious act whatever brings us into communication with the spiritual world, that this exercises a power, and that the nature of the influence thus exercised depends each time on the character of the invisible Being to which the worship is thus addressed. Thus the Holy Supper brings the believer under the influence of Christ (1Co 10:16-17); the Jewish sacrifice brings the Israelite into contact with the altar of Jehovah (1Co 10:18); and the heathen sacrificial feast brings man under the influence of the demons whose arts have given birth to idolatry.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.