1Cor 10:15-24 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 15. I speak as to wise men . I speak to men qualified to understand the subject; and present reasons which will commend themselves to you. The reasons referred to are those which occupy the remainder of the chapter.

1 Corinthians 10:15-24

Verse 15. I speak as to wise men. I speak to men qualified to understand the subject; and present reasons which will commend themselves to you. The reasons referred to are those which occupy the remainder of the chapter. Verse 16. The cup of blessing which we bless. The design of this verse and the following verses seems to be, to prove that Christians, by partaking of the Lord's Supper, are solemnly set apart to the service of the Lord Jesus; that they acknowledge him as their Lord, and dedicate themselves to him; and that, as they could not and ought not to be devoted to idols and to the Lord Jesus at the same time, so they ought not to participate in the feasts in honour of idols, or in the celebrations in which idolaters would be engaged. 1Cor 10:21. He states therefore,

(1.) that Christians are united and dedicated to Christ in the communion, 1Cor 10:16,17.

(2.) That this was true of the Israelites, that they were one people, devoted by the service of the altar to the same God, 1Cor 10:18.

(3.) That though an idol was nothing, yet the heathen actually sacrificed to devils, and Christians ought not to partake with them, 1Cor 10:19-21. The phrase, "cup of blessing," evidently refers to the wine used in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. It is called "the cup of blessing" because over it Christians praise or bless God for his mercy in providing redemption. It is not because it is the means of conveying a blessing to the souls of those who partake of it--though that is true--but because thanksgiving, blessing, and praise were rendered to God in the celebration, for the benefits of redemption. Mt 26:26 Or it may mean, in accordance with a well-known Hebraism, the blessed cup; the cup that is blessed. This is the more literal interpretation; and it is adopted by Calvin, Beza, Doddridge, and others.

Which we bless. Grotius, Macknight, Vetablus, Bloomfield, and many of the Fathers suppose that this means, "over which we bless God;" or, "for which we bless God." But this is to do violence to the passage. The more obvious signification is, that there is a sense in which it may be said that the cup is blessed, and that by prayer and praise it is set apart and rendered in some sense sacred to the purposes of religion. It cannot mean that the cup has undergone any physical change, or that the wine is anything but wine; but that it has been solemnly set apart to the service of religion, and by prayer and praise designated to be used for the purpose of commemorating the Saviour's love. That may be said to be blessed which is set apart to a sacred use, (Gen 2:3, Ex 20:11;) and in this sense the cup may be said to be blessed. See Lk 9:16: "And he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed THEM," etc. Comp. Gen 14:9, 27:23,33,41, 28:1, Lev 9:22,23, 2Sam 6:18, 1Kgs 8:14.

Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? Is it not the emblem by which the blood of Christ is exhibited, and the means by which our union through that blood is exhibited? Is it not the means by which we express our attachment to him as Christians; showing our union to him and to each other; and showing that we partake in common of the benefits of his blood? The main idea is, that by partaking of this cup they showed that they were united to him and to each other; and that they should regard themselves as set apart to him. We have communion with one, (κοινωνια, that which is in common, that which pertains to all, that which evinces fellowship,) when we partake together; when all have an equal right, and all share alike; when the same benefits or the same obligations are extended to all. And the sense here is, that Christians partake alike in the benefits of the blood of Christ; they share the same blessings; and they express this together, and in common, when they partake of the communion.

The bread, etc. In the communion. It shows, since we all partake of it, that we share alike in the benefits which are imparted by means of the broken body of the Redeemer. In like manner it is implied, that if Christians should partake with idolaters in the feasts offered in honour of idols, that they would be regarded as partaking with them in the services of idols, or as united to them, and therefore such participation was improper. Verse 17. For we. We Christians.

Being many. Greek, The many. οιπολλοι. The idea is not, as our translation would seem to indicate, that Christians were numerous, but that all (for οιπολλοι is here evidently used in the sense of παντες, all) were united, and constituted one society.

Are one bread. One loaf; one cake. That is, we are united, or are one. There is evident allusion here to the fact that the loaf or cake was composed of many separate grains of wheat, or portions of flour united in one; or, that as one loaf was broken and partaken by all, it was implied that they were all one. We are all one society; united as one, and for the same object. Our partaking of the same bread is an emblem of the fact that we are one. In almost all nations the act of eating together has been regarded as a symbol of unity or friendship.

And one body. One society; united together.

For we are all partakers, etc. And we thus show publicly that we are united, and belong to the same great family. The argument is, that if we partake of the feasts in honour of idols with their worshippers, we shall thus show that we are a part of their society.

(*) "one bread" "Loaf" Verse 18. Behold Israel. Look at the Jews. The design here is to illustrate the sentiment which he was establishing, by a reference to the fact that among the Jews those who partook of the same sacrifices were regarded as being one people, and as worshipping one God. So, if they partook of the sacrifices offered to idols, they would be regarded also as being fellow-worshippers of idols with them.

After the flesh. See Rom 4:1. The phrase, "after the flesh," is designed to denote the Jews who were not converted to Christianity; the natural descendants of Israel, or Jacob.

Are not they which eat of the sacrifices. A portion of the sacrifices offered to God was eaten by the offerer, and another portion by the priests. Some portions of the animal, as the fat, were burnt; and the remainder, unless it was a holocaust, or whole burnt-offering, was then the property of the priests who had officiated, or of the persons who had brought it, Ex 29:13,22, Lev 3:4,10,15, 4:9, 7:3,4, 8:26. The right shoulder and the breast was the part which was assigned to the priests; the remainder belonged to the offerer.

Partakers of the altar? Worshippers of the same God. They are united in their worship, and are so regarded. And in like manner, if you partake of the sacrifices offered to idols, and join with their worshippers in their temples, you will be justly regarded as united with them in their worship, and partaking with them in their abominations.

(a) "after the flesh" Rom 4:1,12 (b) "are not" 1Cor 9:13 Verse 19. What say I then? This is in the present tense: τιουνφημι, what do I say? What is my meaning ? What follows from this? Do I mean to say that an idol is anything; that it has a real existence? Does my reasoning lead to that conclusion--and am I to be understood as affirming that an idol is of itself of any consequence? It must be recollected that the Corinthian Christians are introduced by Paul (1Cor 8:4) as saying that they knew that an idol was nothing in the world. Paul did not directly contradict that; but his reasoning had led him to the necessity of calling the propriety of their attending on the feasts of idols in question; and he introduces the matter now by asking these questions, thus leading the mind to it rather than directly affirming it at once. "Am I in this reasoning to be understood as affirming that an idol is anything, or that the meat there offered differs from other meat? No; you know, says Paul, that this is not my meaning. I admit that an idol in itself is nothing: but I do not admit, therefore, that it is right for you to attend in their temples; for though the idol itself--the block of wood or stone--is nothing, yet the offerings are really made to devils; and I would not have you engage in such a service," 1Cor 10:20,21.

That the idol is any thing? That the block of wood or stone is a real living object of worship, to be dreaded or loved? 1Cor 8:4.

Or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? Or that the meat which is offered differs from that which is not offered; that the mere act of offering it changes its qualities? I do not admit or suppose this.

(c) 1Cor 8:4 Verse 20. But. The negative here is omitted, but is understood. The ellipsis of a negative after an interrogative sentence is common in the classical writers, as well as in the Scriptures.--Bloomfield. The sense is, "No; I do not say this, but I say that there are reasons why you should not partake of those sacrifices; and one of those reasons is, that they have been really offered to devils."

They sacrifice to devils, (δαιμονιοις, demons.) The heathens used the word demon either in a good or a bad sense. They applied it commonly to spirits that were supposed to be inferior to the supreme God: genii; attending spirits; or, as they called them, divinities, or gods. A part were in their view good, and a part evil. Socrates supposed that such a demon or genius attended him, who suggested good thoughts to him, and who was his protector. As these beings were good and well disposed, it was not supposed to be necessary to offer any sacrifices in order to appease them. But a large portion of those genii were supposed to be evil and wicked, and hence the necessity of attempting to appease their wrath by sacrifices and bloody-offerings. It was therefore true, as the apostle says, that the sacrifices of the heathen were made, usually at least, to devils or to evil spirits. Many of these spirits were supposed to be the souls of departed men, who were entitled to worship after death, having been enrolled among the gods. The word "demons," among the Jews, was employed only to designate evil beings. It is not applied in their writings to good angels or to blessed spirits, but to evil angels, to idols, to false gods. Thus in the Seventy, the word is used to translate , Elilim, idols, (Ps 96:5, Isa 65:10;) and Shaid, as in De 32:17, in a passage which Paul has here almost literally used, "They sacrificed unto devils, not to God." Nowhere in the Septuagint is it used in a good sense. In the New Testament the word is uniformly used also to denote evil spirits, and those usually which had taken possession of men in the time of the Saviour, Mt 7:22, 9:33,34, 10:8, 11:18; Mk 1:34,39, et alii. See also Campbell on the Gospels, Pre. Diss. vi., part i., & 14--16. The precise force of the original is not, however, conveyed by our translation. It is not true that the heathens sacrificed to devils, in the common and popular sense of that word, meaning thereby the apostate angel and the spirits under his direction; for the heathens were as ignorant of their existence as they were of the true God; and it is not true that they designed to worship such beings. But it is true,

(1.) that they did not worship the supreme and the true God. They were not acquainted with his existence; and they did not profess to adore him.

(2.) They worshipped demons; beings that they regarded as inferior to the true God; created spirits, or the spirits of men that had been enrolled among the number of the gods.

(3.) It was true that many of these beings were supposed to be malign and evil in their nature, and that their worship was designed to deprecate their wrath. So that, although an idol was nothing in itself, the gold or wood of which it was made was inanimate, and incapable of aiding or injuring them; and although there were no real beings such as the heathens supposed--no genii or inferior gods--yet they designed to offer sacrifice to such beings, and to deprecate their wrath. To join them in this, therefore, would be to express the belief that there were such beings, and that they ought to be worshipped, and that their wrath should be deprecated.

I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. I would not that you should have communion with demons. I would not have you express a belief of their existence; or join in worship to them; or partake of the spirit by which they are supposed to be actuated-- a spirit that would be promoted by attendance on their worship. I would not have you, therefore, join in a mode of worship where such beings are acknowledged. You are solemnly dedicated to Christ; and the homage due to him should not be divided with homage offered to devils, or to imaginary beings.

(a) "devils" Lev 17:7, De 32:17, Ps 106:37 (*) "devils" "demons" Verse 21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, etc. This does not mean that they had no physical ability to do this, or that it was a natural impossibility; for they certainly had power to do it. But it must mean that they could not consistently do it. It was not fit, proper, decent. They were solemnly bound to serve and obey Christ: they had devoted themselves to him; and they could not, consistently with these obligations, join in the worship of demons. This is a striking instance in which the word cannot is used to denote not natural but moral inability.

And the cup of devils. Demons, 1Cor 10:20. In the feasts in honour of the gods, wine was poured out as a libation, or drunk by the worshippers. See Virg. AEn. viii. 273. The custom of drinking toasts at feasts and celebrations arose from this practice of pouring out wine, or drinking in honour 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 mean 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 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 he could go into the temple of an idol, and partake of the idolatrous celebrations there?

And of the table of devils. Demons. It is not needful to the force of this that we should suppose that the word means necessarily evil spirits. They were not God; and to worship theta was idolatry. The apostle means that Christians could not consistently join in the worship that was offered to them, or in the feasts celebrated in honour of them.

(b) "cup" De 32:38 (*) "devils" "demons" Verse 22. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? That is, shall we, by joining in the worship of idols, provoke or irritate God, or excite him to anger? This is evidently the meaning of the word, παραζηλουμεν rendered "provoke to jealousy." The word , usually rendered by this word by the seventy, has this sense in De 32:21; 1Kgs 14:22, Eze 8:3, Ps 78:58. There is a reference here, doubtless, to the truth recorded in Ex 20:5, that God "is a jealous God," and that he regards the worship of idols as a direct affront to himself. The sentiment of Paul is, that to join in the worship of idols, or in the observance of their feasts, would be to participate in that which had ever been regarded by God with peculiar abhorrence, and which more than anything else tended to provoke his wrath. We may observe, that any course of life that tends to alienate the affections from God, and to fix them on other beings or objects, is a sin of the same kind as that referred to here. Any inordinate love of friends, of property, of honour, has substantially the same idolatrous nature, and will tend to provoke him to anger. And it may be asked of Christians now, whether they will by such inordinate attachments provoke the Lord to wrath? whether they will thus excite his displeasure, and expose themselves to his indignation? Very often Christians do thus provoke him. They become unduly attached to a friend, or to wealth, and God in anger takes away, that friend by death, or that property by the flames: or they conform to the world, and mingle in its scenes of fashion and gaiety, and forget God; and in displeasure he visits them with judgments, humbles them, and recalls them to himself.

Are we stronger than he? This is given as a reason why we should not provoke his displeasure. We cannot contend successfully with him; and it is therefore madness and folly to contend with God, or to expose ourselves to the effects of his indignation.

(c) "provoke" De 32:21, Job 9:4, Eze 22:14 Verse 23. All things are lawful for me. 1Cor 6:12. This is a repetition of what he had said before; and it is here applied to the subject of eating the meat that had been offered to idols. The sense is, "Though it may be admitted that it was strictly lawful to partake of that meat, yet there were strong reasons why it was inexpedient; and those reasons ought to have the binding force of law."

All things edify not. All things do not tend to build up the church, and to advance the interests of religion; and when they do not have this effect, they are not expedient, and are improper. Paul acted for the welfare of the church. His object was to save souls. Anything that would promote that object was proper; any thing which would hinder it, though in itself it might not be strictly unlawful, was in his view improper. This is a simple rule, and might be easily applied by all. If a man has his heart on the conversion of men and the salvation of the world, it will go far to regulate his conduct in reference to many things concerning which there may be no exact and positive law. It will do much to regulate his dress; his style of living; his expenses; his entertainments; his mode of intercourse with the world. He may not be able to fix his finger on any positive law, and to say that this or that article of dress is improper; that this or that piece of furniture is absolutely forbidden; or that this or that manner of life is contrary to any explicit law of JEHOVAH; but he may see that it will interfere with his great and main purpose, to do good on the widest scale possible; and THEREFORE to him it will be inexpedient and improper. Such a grand leading purpose is a much better guide to direct a man's life than would be exact positive statutes to regulate everything, even if such minute statutes were possible.

(d) "things" 1Cor 6:12 Verse 24. Let no man seek his own. This should be properly interpreted of the matter under discussion, though the direction assumes the form of a general principle. Originally it meant, "Let no man, in regard to the question about partaking of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols, consult his own pleasure, happiness, or convenience; but let him, as the leading rule on the subject, ask what will be for the welfare of others. Let him not gratify his own taste and inclinations, regardless of their feelings, comfort, and salvation; but let him in these things have a primary reference to their welfare." He may dispense with these things without danger or injury; he cannot indulge in them without endangering the happiness or purity of others. His duty, therefore, requires him to abstain. The injunction, however, has a general form, and is applicable to all Christians, and to all cases of a similar kind. It does not mean that a man is not in any instance to regard his own welfare, happiness, or salvation; it does not mean that a man owes no duty to himself or family, or that he should neglect all these to advance the welfare of others; but the precept means, that in cases like that under consideration, when there is no positive law, and when a man's example would have a great influence, he should be guided in his conduct, not by a reference to his own ease, comfort, or gratification, but by a reference to the purity and salvation of others. And the observance of this simple rule would make a prodigious change in the church and the world.

But every man another's wealth. The word wealth is not in the Greek. Literally, "that which is of another;" the word το referring to anything and everything that pertains to his comfort, usefulness, happiness, or salvation. The sentiment of the whole is, when a man is bound and directed by no positive law, his grand rule should be the comfort and salvation of others. This is a simple rule; it might be easily applied; and this would be a sort of balance-wheel in the various actions and plans of the world. If every man would adopt this rule, he could not be in much danger of going wrong; he would be certain that he would not live in vain.

(e) "Let no man" Php 2:4,21