Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 10:14

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

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.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

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.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

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 mens sins of this kind.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

14. Resuming the argument,1Co 10:7; 1Co 8:9;1Co 8:10.

fleeDo not tamper withit by doubtful acts, such as eating idol meats on the plea ofChristian liberty. The only safety is in wholly shunningwhatever borders on idolatry (2Co 6:16;2Co 6:17). The Holy Spirit hereinalso presciently warned the Church against the idolatry, subsequentlytransferred from the idol feast to the Lord’s Supper itself, in thefigment of transubstantiation.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

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.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Wherefore (). Powerfully Paul applies the example of the Israelites to the perilous state of the Corinthians about idolatry. See on verse 7 for word .

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

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

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) Wherefore, my beloved.” (dioper agapetoi mou) “In the light of these things my beloved ones.” The sad fate of Israelite brethren in disobedience, the likelihood of their facing trials, the pledge of God for Divine help to resist temptations – These things serve as to enforce considerations of Paul’s following appeal:

2) “Flee from idolatry. (pheugete apo tes eidololatrias) “Flee ye from idolatrous appearance or participation.” He then proceeds to point up the danger of the hypocrisy of eating of the Lord-s table, the Lord’s cup, the Lord’s loaf, and of devil’s simultaneously. Such a thought is revolting and insulting to the Lord – much like a man consorting with an harlot and expecting knowledgeable approval of his wife.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

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 (570) 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 (571) 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 (572) 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.

(570) “ Tant despourueus de sens et cognoissance de Dieu;” — “So devoid of judgment and knowledge of God.”

(571) “ La profession et demonstrance;” — “The profession and display.”

(572) “ Les actes ou gestes externes d’idolatrie;” — “The outward acts or gestures of idolatry.’

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

Butlers Comments

SECTION 3

Indulgence (1Co. 10:14-22)

14 Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. 15I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? 19What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 21You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

1Co. 10:14-18 Gregariousness: Paul is not teaching a lesson on Christian communion or the Lords Supper here. He is using Christian communion as an analogy or an illustration of the principle of fellowship. It should be logically apparent to any thinking individual that the congeniality of dining and drinking with someone indicates the diners are like-minded, agreed in aims and purposes. This was certainly true in ancient cultures more than in modern American culture. People do not participate, continually, at meal-tables with their enemies; at least they are not that congenial with enemies by their own free choice. For example, when Christians eat and drink with Christ at his Supper they are testifying to all they are in fellowship with Christ. They demonstrate they have freely chosen to participate in what he is, in what he is for and against, and in what his aims and purposes are. As Paul will show, the Corinthians, by attending the pagan feasts dedicated to idols were testifying to all they were in fellowship with that for which the idol stood.

This passage in no way teaches the idea that the emblems of the Lords Supper become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Neither does it teach that should we miss participation in the emblems due to circumstances beyond our control we lose contact with the blood of Christ. The death of Christ becomes efficacious to us through obedient faith, to be sure, but a person might have perfect attendance at the Lords Supper and still lose contact with the blood of Christ if he is trusting in the ritual to make him meritoriously fit for salvation. The Pharisees never missed a tithe, never missed a fast, never missed a regulated time of prayer, but they were trusting in their own self-righteousness for approval before God rather than in Gods mercy. The real issue here is not the observance of the Lords Supper, per se, but that of divided loyalty. A man cannot participate with Christ and participate (or indulge) with the devil at the same time. A man cannot serve two masters. A man cannot serve God and mammon.

Another illustration is presented. The priests of the old covenant gave testimony to the fellowship they had with God when they participated in the ritual of offerings upon the altar of God. They did not partake, literally, of the altarthe altar itself was emblematic of the spiritual fellowship they had by faith. This meaning must be applied to all physical acts of New Testament Christianity. There is nothing supernatural or miraculous in the water in which a believer is immersed. The participation the believer has with the efficacious death of Christ is by faith. Immersion in water, in obedience to the command of Christ, symbolizes that faith. Refusal to be immersed, since that is the express act commanded in the New Testament for demonstrating initial faith, would symbolize unbelief. Partaking of immersion in water and the Lords Supper testifies to, demonstrates and symbolizes the spiritual (unseen) reality of the believers oneness with Christ. But the things themselves have no efficacy because things are amoral. Persons are moral. The efficaciousness of Christs death is appropriated through the exercise of a persons faith. Proof that the altar itself contained no efficacy in which priests participated is clearly established by the prophets of the Old Testament who denounce the unbelieving priesthood of their day as enemies of God all the while they are performing the rituals at the altar.

1Co. 10:19-22 Guilt: The preceding principle is exactly what Paul says he is trying to communicate to the Corinthians. Is the food, per se, offered to idols anything? No! Are the wooden or stone or metal images, in themselves, anything? No! A person is not defiled by touching an image or a piece of food sacrificed to an image. The issue is that what those pagans deliberately, willingly, and with personal, moral choice sacrifice to images is really (by their own understanding and choice) sacrifice to demons. These pagans know that the stone image is not a god in itself, but they are worshiping the personal being (an evil being) which it represents.

These strong Christians at Corinth had lost sight (from their misunderstanding of Christian liberty) of the fact that deliberately joining in the festivities and meals around the altar to an idol indicated they were willing to participate in the worship of the evil being represented by the image. They may have been strong enough not to have thought of their actions this way, but everyone else (including Christians more sensitively scrupulous) saw in it Christians willing to join in the worship of demons.
An idol or image may be only a piece of wood or stone, but it is a ready tool for the devil and his demons by which to deceive and seduce men into unbelief. We repeatthings are amoral. But evil persons may use things to corrupt and condemn men. Although Christians may understand that a thing is neither right nor wrong in itself, when they participate in the wrong use of an object, they become partners with the evil person who is using that object to destroy goodness. This is not guilt by association, but guilt by participation. Can we buy, sell, attend, defend things and places devoted to sin and destruction of mind and body without sharing in the devils work?

All a person has to do to become a partner of the devil and his work is to refuse to become a partner with Christ and his work! Some people think they may be neutral, not an enemy of Christ, yet not a friend of the devilso they think. Wrong! Jesus said (Mat. 12:30-31) He that is not with me is against me; he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. Paul says it, You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. To refuse to surrender to the Lordship of Jesus is not neutralityit is the enthronement of self, The person who rejects Jesus as king, makes himself king. To worship man is idolatry and, actually, demonolatry (see Rom. 1:22-25). Rejection of Christ is immoral because it is a rejection of absolute truth. To refuse to participate in the work of Christ is to join in the work of the demons of hell. There is no middle ground!

Appleburys Comments

Text

1Co. 10:14-22. Wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? 17 seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: have not they that eat the sacrifices communion with the altar? 19 What say I then? that a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have communion with demons. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

Flee From Idolatry (1422)

Commentary

All that the apostle has said on the subject of idolatry in answer to the question of the Corinthians is now brought to focus on his concluding exhortation.
In itself, he has indicated, there is nothing to an idol. Therefore, meats used in idol worship are not affected as items of food. But the Christian has an obligation to his brother in Christ who may not possess this knowledge. Love builds up; Paul pleads the cause of love as he urges his beloved fellow-members of the body of Christ to flee from idolatry.

Flee from idolatry.Idolatry is like a plague; it is a fearful evil; in it lurks a hidden danger. If the fathers were overcome by the sins that accompanied idolatry, how could the church hope to escape a like fate except by fleeing from this evil?

I speak as to wise men.That is, to men who were able to think. This is not the same word translated wise in 1Co. 1:26 where Paul says that there were not many among them who were wise according to human standards. Greeks were worshippers of wisdom, but theirs was a wisdom of the immature as opposed to the mature wisdom which Paul preached in the message of the cross.

But these brethren were capable of using the minds God had given them. Paul appeals to them to do so in this matter of idolatry. He gives them concrete cases dealing with the subject that will help them as thinking men to make the right decision.

The cup of blessing which we bless.Since he has discussed idolatry and its feasts, it is appropriate that he call their attention to the church and its worship of Christ in the Lords Supper.

When the supper was instituted, Jesus took the cup and said, This is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you (Luk. 22:20). In so doing He set it aside for a holy, purpose, that is, blessed it by pointing out its meaning. Matthew says that He took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and He gave to the disciples, and said, Take eat; this is my body (Mat. 26:26). The act of blessing was in the consecration of the cup to serve as the reminder of the blessing which Christ brought to His followers through His death.

The cup was not only blessed, it also contained the symbol of the blessing of remission of sins which Christ provided for us through His blood.

Christ also gave thanks for the bread and the cup (Luk. 22:17; 2Co. 11:24). So we also give thanks for the cup, and, in doing so, we should remember that it was set aside for the holy purpose of reminding us of the blessing of remission of sins through the blood of Christ. Thus, we both give thanks and bless (consecrate) the cup in the Lords supper.

is it not a communion of the blood of Christ?This is said to show the thinking men among them that they cannot be idolaters and at the same time partake of the Lords table. Communion means fellowship, or participation in a thing. Its root is a close synonym of the word partake which is found in verses 17 and 21. To say that the cup is a communion in the blood of Christ is to say that it is a means by which the Christian has a share in the blessing that comes from the pouring out of the blood of Christ, that is, remission of sins.

is it not a communion of the body of Christ?What is true about the share we have in the cup is equally true of the bread. The bread is a symbol of the body of Christ. In His discourse on the Bread of Life, Jesus explained His relation to His followers as the source life. As the fathers ate the mannathe only food available to them at the timeso the believers are to eat the living bread that came down out of heaven, that is, believe on Him to have life. He said, the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world (Joh. 6:51). The bread of the Lords supper is a symbol of our participation or sharing in the blessing of eternal life. See Joh. 6:40; Joh. 6:51; Joh. 6:53.

one bread, one body.Not only do we as Christians participate in the life that is given through Christ, but we also have a relation to each other which is suggested by the one body of which we are members. There is only one bread which represents the one body which is the church. There are many members, but only one body. This is an important lesson on the unity of the members of the church and particularly so for the Corinthians in view of their divisions. In this context, the lesson is clearly one that shows the impossibility of being members of the body of Christ and at the same time being members of the demon that was worshiped in idolatry. All of us share in the blessings that come from the one loaf, the symbol of the unity of the body of Christ.

One bread means one kind of bread, not just one piece of bread. The bread Jesus used in the institution of the Lords supper was the unleavened bread of the passover feast. It is altogether fitting that we should use only unleavened bread in the Lords supper. The very principle of excluding leaven from the feast of passover suggests the necessity of the church excluding sin from its life. See 1Co. 5:6-7. To force this phrase to mean one piece of bread is to go beyond the requirements of the symbolism. There are congregations that are too large to be served by one piece of bread. But the one kind, unleavened bread, serves to remind them that they are one in Christ.

Behold Israel after the flesh.The church as the spiritual Israel of God is to take a lesson from the history of the fathers. They who had a share in the sacrifice offered on the altar were in fellowship (partnership) with God. The worshiper shares in the sacrifice and becomes a partner of the deity who is thus worshiped. That is true whether they worshiped God or some demon represented by an idol.

to demons, not God.The apostle has carefully laid the ground for the main thrust of his argument against Christians participating in idolatrous feasts. He did not say that the meat used in such feasts was thereby made unfit for food, nor did he say that an idol was anything in itself. But there is more to idolatry than appears in the external ceremony of worshiping it: Gentiles sacrifice to demons and not to God.

communion with demons.Christians should have fellowship or partnership with Christ, not demons. The enemies of Jesus attempted to discredit Him before the multitudes by saying that He was in league with Beelzebub, the prince of demons or Satan. See Mat. 12:24-30. Jesus easily refuted their charge by (1) showing that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, and (2) indicating that the pretended work of the Jewish exorcists was clearly counterfeit, and (3) presenting the illustration of the strong mans house. But no doubt there were some who did believe the false charge in spite of His defense.

Paul had the same difficulty at Philippi (Act. 16:11-18). He had to reject the testimony of the soothsaying girl who followed him saying, These men are servants of the Most High God. This, of course, was true, but the apostle could not afford to have it said that he was an associate of demons.

This was the problem faced by the church at Corinth. If Satan could make some believe that the Christians were actually worshiping demons, then he would be able to discredit the church in the eyes of the pagans. Therefore, Paul said, I would not that ye should have communion with demons.

Ye cannot.There are some things that are impossible. To attempt to do two things that are absolutely opposite to each other such as drinking the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons simply results in demon worship. The worship of Christ is nullified. Jesus said, Ye cannot serve God and mammon (Mat. 6:24). God will not tolerate the worshiper who owns allegiance to demons.

Or do we provoke the Lord?The reference is to the history of Israel as suggested in Deu. 32:21. Israel was continually going astray by worshiping idols. Like a husband who is made jealous because of an unfaithful wife, God is said to be jealous because Israel worshiped what was a no-god. This was an insult to God. Were the Corinthians trying to make Christ jealous by paying homage to demonsevil spirits under the control of Satan?

are we stronger than he?The quotation in Deuteronomy suggests that the Lord would provoke Israel that worshiped the no-god by giving consideration to those who were no peoplethat is, to those who had no standing in their eyes, the Gentiles. Did the Corinthians suppose that they could safely provoke the Lord by worshiping demons? Did they assume that they were strong enough to keep Him from rejecting them and turning to others who would be faithful to Him?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(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 Godbecause He makes it possible for you to escape these dangers and sinsflee from idolatry. Do not be trying how near you can get to it, but rather how far you can get from it.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

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.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘For this reason, my beloved, flee from idolatry.’

All temptation must be faced in the right way. The way of escape from idolatry is to flee from it. This is significant. It is saying that they are not to say, ‘God can give us strength to fight the evil influence of idolatry if we participate in these feasts’. Rather they are to flee from them That is the only way to fight their influences. For if we put ourselves in the way of temptation (‘for this reason’) we cannot expect God’s assistance in overcoming it.

Idolatry has its own subtle pull. Men who have been involved with idolatry may feel that they have rid themselves of its influence, but at weak moments, if they pander to it, it will work its way into their hearts and drag them down, for by it they are consorting with devils (1Co 10:20). Thus avoidance is the best way to deal with it. Elsewhere Paul applies the same principle to youthful lusts. They are to be fought by hasty, strategic withdrawal and careful avoidance of places which might produce the temptation, not by ‘facing up to the temptation and trying to resist it’ (1Co 6:18; 1Ti 6:11; 2Ti 2:22). To watch films that are full of immorality so that we can prove that we can overcome our desires is a sure way to be defeated. But as always there are exceptions. Some may be called to go among such things that they may present Christ there. But those very exceptions prove the truth of the principle. For the vast majority such things should be avoided.

I knew a man in Christ who worked among the sins of Soho. He would sometimes take theological students with him, but always warning them never to visit the dens of vice alone. But one was sure that he was strong enough, and it was only because that man in Christ had friends who were concerned enough to contact him that he learned in time what was happening and was able to rescue that rather foolish young man from what would have destroyed his future. The word is true. Flee youthful desires.

This reminds us that in the main sins of the flesh are to be met by fleeing, sins of the mind by looking to the word of God and standing firm (1Co 16:13; Eph 6:10-18; 2Ti 2:15; Gal 5:1), and the pride of life by humbling oneself, subjecting oneself to God and resisting the Devil (Jas 4:7). Each must be fought using the right weapons.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

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.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

1Co 10:14 . ] 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 , fugiendo discedere a , see on Mat 3:7 . Rckert 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 (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 ).

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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

14Wherefore, my dearly [om. dearly] beloved, flee from idolatry. 15I speak as towise men; judge ye what I say. 16The cup of [the, ] 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, ] 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, ] 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, with devils. 21Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lords 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, 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 () 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 addressmy dearly belovedimparts 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 worshipa 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, 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 Lords 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 is undoubtedly accusative, corresponding to 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 wordswhich we blessare 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 thanksgivingan interpretation which transcends the meaning of ; or the consecration (comp. Lev 9:16), and then interpret: which we set apart by prayer to a holy usean act which certainly included thanksgiving. The expression is derived from the observance of the Passover, when the third cup which went round was called .6 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 breadacts of consecration, were not the acts of the minister, as by any authority peculiar to himself, but only as representative of the whole congregation ( ). 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. 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, , common, whence , 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 , symbolizes, the argument is made void. Alford. So Hodge: He who partakes of the cup, partakes of Christs 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 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 Christs 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 Lords Supper has been instituted as a real communion, and not as a mere symbol. Neander.because one bread, one body we the many are. . 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 (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 , 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 () 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 , one body, must therefore be taken as an independent clause with , 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.( .). This again is variously explained. We may either take , from that one bread, as the direct object of , partake, and read [as the E. V. does]: we all have part or partake of that one breadwhich is contrary to the otherwise uniform construction of (which requires the Gen. or the Accus. after it), and may be accounted for by supposing , or , understood. Or we may, as in 1Co 10:30, make , of the one body, supplied from the context, the object of , partake, and regard 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 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. , one idea; therefore without the article before . 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? 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 Lords 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 itthat 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 , he would say: that there is any idol-offering, or any idolnamely, of the sort mentioned? Both constructions amount to the same thing.But [i.e., nay, but; this ellipsis of the negative taken up by , is found in classical Greek].And now comes his direct statementthat 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, . 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 Gods 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 injunctionand I would not that ye should have communion with devilsthe very thing he would convict them of doingand 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.7Since 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 , demons, to whom the heathen sacrificed, are not imaginary godssub-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 , 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 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 devils 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 (Rckert).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 Lords Supper.Ye cannot.The inability here expressed is of a moral kinda moral impossibility.drink the cup of the Lord,that is, the cup of the Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 questionAre we stronger than He?so that we can avert His retributive power?

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Communion with the Lord and in the Lordsuch is the fundamental generic idea of the Lords Supper. He is in us, and we in Him; and therefore all united togethermembers 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 usHis body broken in death for our sakesHis 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 lifein 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 Pauls 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 symbolsthat 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 Apostles 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 Luthers view, viz., that of the mysterious union of the elements with the body and blood of Christ, effected through the power of Christs Spirit in His Worda 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 tinger (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 condemneven 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 ones 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 exclusivelywholly 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 Lords Supper, a pledge of the resurrection of believers. As the consecrated bread and wine were the authentic symbols of Christs 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 acceptationthey 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 Christs 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 (tinger). There is no profit in serving two masters, and just as little in trying to sponge on them both. If the worlds baits delight, let Christs 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 Gods 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 priceeverything which cannot be found in this worlds 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 meatthe 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 Lords 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 devils table.Those who tread under foot Christs 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. Gods 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 Lords 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 Christs Table run into the web which the devil spins at his banquets of pleasure. Every observance of the Lords Supper ought to impress on us the words of Paul, Ye cannot be partakers of the Lords 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].

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

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.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

14. ] Conclusion from the above warning examples : IDOLATRY IS BY ALL MEANS TO BE SHUNNED; not tampered with, but fled from .

(‘ fugiendo discedite a ,’ Meyer) expressing even more strongly than the accus, with , 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.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

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. , as in 1Co 8:13 (see note), points with emphatic finger along the line of past history; ( cf. 1Co 4:14 ) reinforces admonition with entreaty.

[1484] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 10:14-22

14Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. 18Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? 19What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?

1Co 10:14 “Therefore” Paul is concluding the previous discussion and moving on to a conclusion.

NASB, NKJV”my beloved”

NRSV, TEV,

NJB”my dear friends”

Paul’s Corinthian letters (and Galatians) are his hardest words to churches. Therefore, he wants to remind them how precious they are to him even when he speaks so harshly to them (cf. 1Co 4:14; 1Co 10:14; 1Co 15:58; 2Co 7:1; 2Co 12:19).

This term was used by God the Father of Jesus (cf. Mat 3:17; Mat 12:18; Mat 17:5). Paul, Peter, Jude, and John, in their letters, use this adjective to denote the followers of Jesus. They are beloved because of their relationship to Christ; beloved by God, by Christ, and by the writers of the NT letters.

“flee from idolatry” This is a present active imperative. Notice “idolatry” has the definite article. God provides a way, but believers must choose to take advantage of it (cf. 1Co 6:18). One way to handle temptation is to flee its presence. Believers must not put themselves into the arena of temptation.

“Idolatry” in the OT was the image and worship of pagan gods. In our day it is anything that replaces God in our priority structure (cf. 1Co 10:7; 1Co 10:14). As Jesus said, where your treasure is there will your heart be (cf. Mat 6:21). Moderns reveal their priorities by time, money, and thought life. Religion is often a significant appendage, but not the core priority. True faith does not deal with excess, but with the essence of life. The book of 1 John closes with “guard yourselves from idols” (cf. 1Jn 5:21).

1Co 10:15 This shows Paul’s approach to leadership. He was an Apostle of Christ, yet he admonishes these prideful believers to judge his words for themselves (cf. 1Co 14:39-40). It is surely possible that Paul is being sarcastic. He used this same word (i.e., wise man) in 1Co 4:10 and 2Co 11:19 in a sarcastic sense.

1Co 10:16 This verse is constructed as two rhetorical questions (although TEV translates it as indicative statements).

“the cup of blessing” This probably refers to the third cup in the Jewish Passover service. It was what Jesus used to inaugurate the Lord’s Supper.

The term “blessing” is eulogia from the verb euloge, which means “to praise,” “to flatter,” “to bless,” or “to benefit.” See note at 2Co 9:5. We get the English term eulogy from this Greek root. When Jesus enacted this ordinance he took both the cup and bread and gave thanks to God. The Greek term for thanks or thanksgiving is eucharistia, from which we get the term Eucharist. Both of these Greek terms are used in a synonymous way in 1Co 14:16.

It is interesting, but not theologically significant, that the normal order of the cup and bread (cf. 1Co 11:24-27) is reversed here. The order is not the issue, rather fellowship with Christ at His communal meal versus fellowship with pagan deities at their communal meals.

SPECIAL TOPIC: PASSOVER (ORDER OF SERVICE)

“sharing” This is the Greek word koinonia, which means “joint participation with.” This is the origin of the English word “communion,” used for the Eucharistic symbolic meal, which emphasizes fellowship now, but a more intimate fellowship in the future. See Special Topic: Koinonia at 1Co 1:9.

“in the blood of Christ” This is an emphasis on the death of Christ in its sacrificial OT context (cf. Levticus 1-7). The blood symbolized the life (cf. Lev 17:11; Lev 17:14).

“the bread which we break” This is the source of the English phrase we use for the Lord’s Supper, “breaking bread” (cf. Act 2:42). This was the symbol Jesus chose to represent the New Covenant in His broken body on the cross. He purposely did not choose the Passover Lamb, which was a symbol of the old covenant experience (cf. Exodus 12).

“sharing in the body of Christ” The symbol of the “body of Christ” is twofold: (1) His physical body was sacrificed for human sin and (2) His followers became His spiritual body, the church (which also has two aspects in 1 Corinthians: [a] local church and [b] the universal church).

1Co 10:17 This is an emphasis on the unity of Christ and His church expressed in the Lord’s Supper symbolism (i.e., one bread). This same unity of Christ’s body is in 1Co 12:12-13 in relation to spiritual gifts.

1Co 10:18 “the nation Israel” This is literally “Israel according to the flesh” (see Special Topic at 1Co 1:26). This is another symbolic way (i.e., historical allusion) to show the unity of those who partake of the Lord’s Supper.

1Co 10:19 “What do I mean then” Paul’s writings are some of the easiest biblical texts to interpret because he logically develops his thought. Logical markers such as this phrase allow modern interpreters to outline Paul’s thoughts at paragraph level, which is a key in interpreting his books.

Paul develops his thought throughout this context by a series of rhetorical questions (cf. NASB, 1Co 10:16 (two); 1Co 10:18 (one); 1Co 10:19 (two or three); 1Co 10:22 (two); 1Co 10:29 (one); 1Co 10:30 (one).

“or that an idol is anything” As an example of how ancient scribes unintentionally altered the texts they were copying, this phrase was accidentally left out in the very early ancient Greek manuscripts (i.e., P46, *, A, and C). For further discussion of Textual Criticism see Appendix Two.

1Co 10:20 “sacrifice to demons” Paul, going back to the OT, understood idolatry as related, not to the reality of the image, but to the reality of spiritual forces in the physical creation (cf. Lev 16:8; Lev 12:7; Deu 32:17; Psa 96:5; Psa 106:37; Isa 65:11; Rev 9:20; Rev 16:14). Behind all human activity is the spiritual realm (cf. Deu 32:8 [LXX]; Daniel 10; Eph 6:10-18). Although it is never stated specifically that the fallen angels of the OT are the demonic of the NT, Paul refers to these fallen spiritual forces by other terms in Rom 8:38-39; 1Co 15:24; Eph 1:21; Eph 3:10; Col 1:16; Col 2:10; Col 2:15. Paul uses the term “demon” only here and in 1Ti 4:1. See Special Topic: Personal Evil at 1Co 7:5.

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE DEMONIC (UNCLEAN SPIRITS)

“sharers in demons” Follow Paul’s analogy. Christians are one with Christ’s body (i.e., the church) because they are one with His sacrifice (i.e., His body crucified on Calvary) because they share in the bread of the Lord’s Supper that symbolized His broken body. Therefore, pagans who share in the eating of meat sacrificed to a non-existent idol participate in spiritual idolatry relating to the demons behind world religions. As believers share in the historical events of Jesus’ life by means of ritual (i.e., Romans 6), so too, unbelievers share in the demonic.

1Co 10:21 This phrase refers to the pagans’ sacrifices and rituals in the pagan temples of Corinth. A believer cannot affirm the exclusiveness of Christianity (i.e., one and only one true God and Jesus His Messiah) and still spiritually participate in pagan worship. If they do, it is spiritual idolatry!

1Co 10:22 “provoke the Lord to jealousy” This seems to be an allusion to Deu 4:25; Deu 32:16; Deu 32:21; Psa 78:58; or Isa 65:3. The term Lord in 1Co 10:21 obviously refers to Jesus, but in 1Co 10:22 to YHWH. This type of transfer is one of the ways that NT authors assert the deity of Jesus of Nazareth.

The term “jealousy” is a powerful love word. One is only jealous about someone they love. YHWH is emotionally involved with His people, who reflect His character and take His name to the world. Idolatry destroys this fellowship and the evangelistic purpose.

“We are not stronger than He, are we” The grammar expects a “no” answer. This terminology implies two different Christian groups being referred to: the weak brother in 1Co 10:14-21 and the strong brother in 1Co 10:23-33. 1Co 10:22 shows the difficulty of trying to deal with the mindset of these two groups of believers (cf. Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13). Paul is trying to walk a theological tightrope between two Christian philosophies/world views (i.e., freedom and bondage to past experiences).

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

Wherefore. See 1Co 8:13.

dearly beloved. App-135.

idolatry. Greek. eidololatreia. Only here. Gal 1:5, Gal 1:20. Col 3:5. 1Pe 4:3. Compare 2Co 6:16. 1Jn 5:21.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

14.] Conclusion from the above warning examples: IDOLATRY IS BY ALL MEANS TO BE SHUNNED; not tampered with, but fled from.

(fugiendo discedite a, Meyer) expressing even more strongly than the accus, with , 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.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Co 10:14. , 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.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 10:14

1Co 10:14

Wherefore,-[This appeal is made in view of all that has been said of the severe judgments that came upon the idolatrous Israelites, and the danger that Christians may fall into the same sins and thus incur Gods displeasure.]

my beloved,-While Paul reproves them very sharply, he speaks to them in much love and tenderness.

flee from idolatry.-Avoid idolatry by fleeing from it. This is the only safe method of escaping its coils. We are subject to idolatry, not so gross in form, but more insidious and deceptive. We serve what we worship. [We should avoid all that approaches the confines of sin, and keep at a distance from everything which excites evil passions or which tends to ensnare the soul.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

my: Rom 12:19, 2Co 7:1, 2Co 11:11, 2Co 12:15, 2Co 12:19, Phi 4:1, Phm 1:1, 1Pe 2:11

flee: 1Co 10:7, 1Co 10:20, 1Co 10:21, 2Co 6:17, 1Jo 5:21, Rev 2:14, Rev 13:8, Rev 21:8, Rev 22:15

Reciprocal: Lev 19:4 – General Eze 31:18 – This is 1Co 4:10 – are wise 1Co 5:11 – or an idolater 1Ti 6:11 – flee 2Ti 2:22 – Flee

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1Co 10:14. Idolatry was frequently mingled with immorality, both of which were common in Corinth. In chapter 6:18 Paul exhorts the brethren to “flee” from the latter, and in this verse he urges the same action toward the former. To flee from a thing means more than merely not partaking; it means to run as from a poisonous adder.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Co 10:14. Wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry,

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

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.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Flee From Idolatry

Idolatry is dangerous. As surely as one would flee from a snake coiled at his feet, he should flee from idolatry. Perhaps to make the lesson more palatable, and certainly because he truly loved them, Paul addressed the Corinthians as brethren. The apostle went on to tell them he was writing to them as men and women who could discern the truth. They knew drunkenness, reveling, lust, etc. were closely related to idolatry. It should have been readily apparent to them that anything so closely related to such sins ought to be avoided ( 1Co 10:14-15 ). In a letter to the church in Thessalonica, Paul wrote, “Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil” ( 1Th 5:21-22 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

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 idols 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 idols 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 idols 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.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

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.

, 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 , 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 , 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.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

Wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

1Co 10:14-22. Paul now deals directly with the problem of idol sacrifice. He appeals to the analogy of the Supper. The Eucharistic cup brings the worshipper into fellowship with Christs blood, the loaf into fellowship with His body. Participating in the one loaf the many worshippers become one. So the eating of the Israelite sacrifices effects communion with the altar (so Philo, not OT). Let these analogies be applied. Neither the sacrifice nor the idol are real. But the sacrifices are offered to the demons not to God (Deu 32:17), and thus bring the participants into fellowship with demons. This involves an intolerable incompatibility; they cannot combine the Lords cup and table with those of the demons. What madness to rouse the Lords jealousy by giving Him such a rival (Deu 32:21)! are the strong stronger than He?

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

SECTION 18 AVOID GIVING ANY SANCTION TO IDOLATRY CH. 10:14-22

For which cause certainly, my beloved ones, fly from idolatry. As to prudent men I say, Judge yourselves what I assert. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not partnership in* (* Greek, partnership of the blood, etc.) the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not partnership in* (* Greek, partnership of the blood, etc.) the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, one body we, the many, are. For, from the one bread, we all partake.

Look at Israel according to flesh. Are not they who eat the sacrifices partners with the altar?

What, then, do I assert? That an idol-sacrifice is anything? or that an idol is anything? but that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, to demons and not to God they sacrifice. And I do not wish you to become partners with demons. You cannot be partaking of a table of the Lord and a table of demons. Or, are we moving the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

On introducing the matter of food offered to idols, which occupies DIV. IV., Paul laid down in 14 the principle of not doing that which injures others. This he supported in 15, 16 by his own example; and in 17 by a warning from the story of the Israelites. He will not deal specifically with one part of the matter in hand, viz. idol-feasts; by showing that attendance at them involves partnership with evil spirits. This he proves by the analogy

(1Co 10:16-17) of the Lord’s Supper and (1Co 10:18) of the Mosaic sacrifices; shows it to be (1Co 10:19-20 a) in harmony with what he has already said, and the Old Testament has said, about idols; and adds (1Co 10:20-22) a threefold dissuasive from such feasts.

1Co 10:14-15. Fly from idolatry: 1Co 10:7 abstain from idol-feasts, (cp. 1Co 8:10,) which Paul will prove to be actual idolatry.

For which cause: Since God has pledged Himself to make in every temptation a way of escape, there is no need even in Corinth to yield to the many inducements to attend such feasts. These words remind the readers that such inducements were only a trial of their faith.

Prudent: or thoughtful. This appeal prepares us for something important and difficult.

Assert: not an unproved assertion. For judge for yourselves implies that reasons will be given.

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

The incompatibility of Christianity and idolatry 10:14-22

The apostle proceeded to warn his readers of the danger of idolatry further (cf. 1Co 10:7). This paragraph concludes the long argument that Paul began in 1Co 8:1 concerning going to temple feasts.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Formerly Paul urged the Corinthians to flee fornication (1Co 6:18; cf. 1Co 10:8). Now he concluded all he said in 1Co 10:1-13 with the charge to flee idolatry, the worship of idols (cf. 1Jn 5:21). He commanded his readers to use the way of escape, God’s enabling grace, immediately. He softened his strong command with an affectionate address ("my beloved"). Amoral activities are all right for the Christian, but if they involve or lead to idolatry we should avoid them.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)