E. The incompatibility of Christian and idol feasts (10:14–22)
E. The incompatibility of Christian and idol feasts (10:14–22)
14. Therefore (dioper), a stronger particle than that in v. 12, indicates a very close logical sequence. My dear friends (agapētoi mou, ‘my beloved’) is not a common form of address; it indicates Paul’s deep emotion as he counsels these dear friends to take the right course. He had urged them to ‘flee fornication’ (6:18), and he now says flee from idolatry. Here, as there, the present imperative signifies the habitual practice. There is to be no leisurely contemplation of the sin, thinking that one can go so far, and be safe from going further. The only wise course is to have nothing to do with it. ‘They must not try how near they can go, but how far they can fly’ (Robertson and Plummer; cf. Chrysostom, ‘he did not say, simply, depart, but “flee” ’). Paul has just assured them of God’s help in time of temptation. But that does not give them licence to dally needlessly with it. They must flee from it.
15. The Corinthians prided themselves on their wisdom (2 Cor. 11:19); now Paul appeals to it. They are sensible people (phronimos, not sophos as in 1:20ff.), and yourselves is emphatic. Paul does not need to demonstrate the point. They can see it for themselves.
16. ‘The cup of blessing’ (NIV thanksgiving) is the name the Jews gave the cup at the end of a meal, over which a thanksgiving was said; it was also used of the third cup at the Passover feast. It is possibly this cup with which Jesus instituted the sacrament of Holy Communion (though Rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok thinks that Jesus’ blessing was over the fourth cup and that Paul means simply ‘the cup which Jesus blessed’, NTS 27, 1980–81, pp. 704–709). ‘Bless’ does not mean that a blessing was somehow attached to the cup; it means that a prayer of thanksgiving was said over it (hence the translation of NIV). Among the Jews the usual form of thanksgiving began, ‘Blessed art Thou, O Lord’, after which came the matter for thanksgiving. Paul is referring then to the prayer of thanksgiving said over the cup at Holy Communion. Chrysostom comments, ‘he called it a cup of blessing, because holding it in our hands, we so exalt Him in our hymn, wondering, astonished at His unspeakable gift …’ The cup is mentioned before the bread though when Paul comes to deal with the institution (11:23ff) the bread comes first. The order here may be due to a desire to stress the shedding of the blood of the Lord, or it may be due to the prominence of the cup and the insignificance of bread in the pagan sacrifices to which Paul is leading up. In Holy Communion there is a participation in the blood of Christ (‘The basic idea is that of the atoning power of the blood’, Conzelmann). Those who receive the cup rightly receive Christ. They are bound together in fellowship with Christ. ‘The soul has as truly communion in the blood, as we drink wine with the mouth’ (Calvin). Such reception is, of course, a spiritual process, and therefore takes place by faith. Paul says that the faithful communicant receives Christ, but nothing about the ‘how’ of it. Hodge points out that Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed all agree ‘that a participation of the cup is a participation of the blood of Christ’. But doctrines like transubstantiation or consubstantiation cannot be demonstrated from these words. ‘All that the passage asserts is the fact of a participation, the nature of that participation must be determined from other sources.’ The statement about the bread is to be understood similarly: the broken loaf means a participation in the body of Christ.
17. This is a difficult verse to interpret in detail, but the stress on unity is clear. The one loaf at Communion symbolizes and brings about unity. Believers are many, but they are one body. The word for points to the place of Holy Communion in bringing about unity. Communicants are united to Christ and united to one another.
18. Paul develops his point from the example of the people of Israel (‘Israel according to the flesh’). The expression distinguishes physical Israel from the true Israel, the church (cf. Gal. 6:16). Jews who eat the sacrifices by that very fact participate (the word is cognate with ‘participation’ in v. 16) in the altar. Those who receive the food of sacrifice enter into fellowship with all that the altar stands for.
19. The problem before the Corinthians was a difficult one. To eat idol meat might be held to sanction idolatry; not to eat it might imply that the idol was real. Paul starts with vigorous questions that imply that the idol sacrifice and the idol are both shams.
20. No is the strong adversative alla. Far from the preceding, Paul affirms something that is nearly its opposite. He will not dispute the contention of the Corinthians that an idol is not a god at all. But he will not agree that therefore idols can safely be treated as nothing more than so many blocks of wood and stone. The demons use people’s readiness to worship idols. Thus, when people sacrifice to idols, it cannot be said that they are engaging in some meaningless or neutral activity. They are sacrificing to evil spirits (cf. Deut. 32:16f.). Paul has shown from the usage of both Christians and Jews that to share food is to establish fellowship. Idol worshippers are entering into fellowship with demons. Paul does not wish this to befall his Corinthian friends.
21. He puts the alternatives in stark contrast. It is impossible for people to be participants in both the Holy Communion and idol feasts if they realize what they are doing. The one necessarily excludes the other. There is no room for compromise. The Lord’s table reminds us that the Lord is the host at the sacrament. By parity of reasoning the table of demons indicates that there may be other hosts. But those who accept the Lord’s invitation cannot in good conscience also accept the invitation of demons. If we are really in fellowship with the Lord we cannot also be in fellowship with demons. Some have thought that the reference to the two tables here shows that the Holy Communion is essentially a sacrifice (just as an offering to an idol is a sacrifice). But the inference is not valid. All that Paul is saying is that the Holy Communion, in one aspect, is a feeding at the table of the Lord, an enjoyment of fellowship with him. Similarly participation in an idol feast means having fellowship with demons. There may be many other aspects to either. Identity of principle is neither asserted nor implied.
22. ‘Or’ at the beginning of the verse in the better MSS brings us to an alternative. Paul has been assuming that the Corinthians do not realize the significance of taking part in idol feasts and has therefore explained it. But suppose they did understand what they were doing? Then they would be wilfully provoking the Lord (Deut. 32:21). The second question brings home the weakness of us all before our Maker and therefore the incredible folly of the kind of action of which he speaks.