Text -- 1 Corinthians 10:16-33 (NET)

10:16 Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all share the one bread. 10:18 Look at the people of Israel. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? 10:19 Am I saying that idols or food sacrificed to them amount to anything? 10:20 No, I mean that what the pagans sacrifice is to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 10:21 You cannot cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot cannot take part in the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 10:22 Or are we trying to provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we really stronger than he is?

Live to Glorify God

10:23 “Everything is lawful,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds others up. 10:24 Do not seek your own good, but the good of the other person. 10:25 Eat anything that is sold in the marketplace without questions of conscience, 10:26 for the earth and its abundance are the Lord’s. 10:27 If an unbeliever invites you to dinner and you want to go, eat whatever is served without asking questions of conscience. 10:28 But if someone says to you, “This is from a sacrifice,” do not eat, because of the one who told you and because of conscience– 10:29 I do not mean mean yours but the other person’s. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 10:30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I blamed for the food that I give thanks for? 10:31 So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. 10:32 Do not give offense to Jews or Greeks or to the church of God, 10:33 just as I also try to please everyone in all things. I do not seek my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: 1Co 10:16

The cup of blessing ( to potērion tēs eulogias ).

The cup over which we pronounce a blessing as by Christ at the institution of the ordinance.

Robertson: 1Co 10:16

A communion of the blood of Christ ( Koinéōnia tou haimatos tou Christou ).

Literally, a participation in (objective genitive) the blood of Christ. The word Koinéōnia is an old one from Koinéōnos , partner, and so here and Phi 2:1; Phi 3:10. It can mean also fellowship (Gal 2:9) or contribution (2Co 8:4; Phi 1:5). It is, of course, a spiritual participation in the blood of Christ which is symbolized by the cup. Same meaning for Koinéōnia in reference to "the body of Christ."

Robertson: 1Co 10:16

The bread which we break ( ton arton hon klōmen ).

The loaf. Inverse attraction of the antecedent (arton ) to the case (accusative) of the relative (hon ) according to classic idiom (Robertson, Grammar , p. 488). Artos probably from arō , to join or fit (flour mixed with water and baked). The mention of the cup here before the bread does not mean that this order was observed for see the regular order of bread and then cup in 1Co 11:24-27.

Robertson: 1Co 10:17

One bread ( heis artos ).

One loaf.

Robertson: 1Co 10:17

Who are many ( hoi polloi ).

The many.

Robertson: 1Co 10:17

We all ( hoi pantes ).

We the all, the whole number, hoi pantes being in apposition with the subject we (hēmeis unexpressed).

Robertson: 1Co 10:17

Partake ( metechomen ).

Have a part with or in, share in. See 1Co 9:12; Heb 2:14; Heb 5:13 (partaking of milk).

Robertson: 1Co 10:17

Of the one bread ( tou henos artou ).

Of the one loaf, the article tou referring to one loaf already mentioned.

Robertson: 1Co 10:17

One body ( hen sōma ).

Here the mystical spiritual body of Christ as in 1Co 12:12., the spiritual kingdom or church of which Christ is head (Col 1:18; Eph 5:23).

Robertson: 1Co 10:18

After the flesh ( kata sarka ).

The literal Israel, the Jewish people, not the spiritual Israel (Israēl kata pneuma ) composed of both Jews and Gentiles, the true children of faith (Rom 2:28; Rom 9:8; Gal 3:7).

Robertson: 1Co 10:18

Communion with the altar ( Koinéōnoi tou thusiastēriou ).

Same idea in Koinéōnoi participators in, partners in, sharers in (with objective genitive). The word thusiastērion is from late verb thusiazō , to offer sacrifice, and that from thusia , sacrifice, and that from thuō , common verb to slay, to sacrifice (1Co 10:20). The Israelites who offer sacrifices have a spiritual participation in the altar.

Robertson: 1Co 10:19

A thing sacrificed to idols ( eidōlothuton ).

See Act 15:29; note on 1Co 8:1, note on 1Co 8:4

Robertson: 1Co 10:19

Idol ( eidōlon ).

Image of a god. See note on Act 7:41; note on Act 15:20; note on 1Co 8:4; and note on 1Co 8:7.

Robertson: 1Co 10:20

But I say that ( all' hoti ).

The verb phēmi (I say) must be repeated from 1Co 10:19 before hoti .

Robertson: 1Co 10:20

To demons, and not to God ( daimoniois kai ou theōi ).

Referring to lxx text of Deuteronomy 32:17. It is probable that by ou theōi Paul means "to a no-god"as also in Deu 32:21 ep' ouk ethnei (by a no-people). This is Paul’ s reply to the heathen who claimed that they worshipped the gods represented by the images and not the mere wood or stone or metal idols. The word daimonia is an adjective daimonios from daimōn , an inferior deity, and with same idea originally, once in this sense in N.T. (Act 17:18). Elsewhere in N.T. it has the notion of evil spirits as here, those spiritual forces of wickedness (Eph 6:12) that are under the control of Satan. The word daimonia , so common in the Gospels, occurs in Paul’ s writings only here and 1Ti 4:1. Demonology is a deep and dark subject here pictured by Paul as the explanation of heathenism which is a departure from God (Rom 1:19-23) and a substitute for the worship of God. It is a terrible indictment which is justified by the licentious worship associated with paganism then and now.

Robertson: 1Co 10:21

Ye cannot ( ou dunasthe ).

Morally impossible to drink the Lord’ s cup and the cup of demons, to partake of the Lord’ s table and the table of demons.

Robertson: 1Co 10:21

Of the table of the Lord ( trapezēs Kuriou ).

No articles, but definite idea. Trapeza is from tetra (four) and peza (a foot), four-footed. Here table means, as often, what is on the table. See Luk 22:30 where Jesus says "at my table"(epi tēs trapezēs mou ), referring to the spiritual feast hereafter. Here the reference is plainly to the Lord’ s Supper (Kuriakon deipnon , 1Co 11:20). See allusions in O.T. to use of the table in heathen idol feasts (Isa 65:11; Jer 7:18; Eze 16:18.; Eze 23:41). The altar of burnt-offering is called the table of the Lord in Mal 1:7 (Vincent).

Robertson: 1Co 10:22

Provoke to jealousy ( parazēloumen ).

The very word used in Deu 32:21 of the insolence of the old Israelites. Quoted in Rom 10:19. Such double-dealing now will do this very thing.

Robertson: 1Co 10:22

Stronger than he ( ischuroteroi autou ).

Comparative adjective followed by the ablative.

Robertson: 1Co 10:23

See note on 1Co 6:12 for lawful (exestin ) and expedient (sumpherei ). @@Edify not ( ouk oikodomei ).

Build up. Explanation of expedient (sumpherei ).

Robertson: 1Co 10:24

Let no man seek his own ( mēdeis to heautou zēteitō ).

This is Paul’ s rule for social relations (1Co 13:5; Gal 6:2; Rom 14:7; Rom 15:2; Phi 2:1.) and is the way to do what is expedient and what builds up.

Robertson: 1Co 10:24

His neighbour’ s good ( to tou heterou ).

Literally, "the affair of the other man."Cf. ton heteron in Rom 13:8 for this idea of heteros like ho plēsion (the nigh man, the neighbour) in Rom 15:2. This is loving your neighbour as yourself by preferring your neighbour’ s welfare to your own (Phi 2:4).

Robertson: 1Co 10:25

In the shambles ( en makellōi ).

Only here in N.T. A transliterated Latin word macellum , possibly akin to maceria and the Hebrew word for enclosure, though occurring in Ionic and Laconian and more frequent in the Latin. It occurs in Dio Cassius and Plutarch and in the papyri and inscriptions for "the provision market."Deissmann ( Light from the Ancient East , p. 276) says: "In the Macellum at Pompeii we can imagine to ourselves the poor Christians buying their modest pound of meat in the Corinthian Macellum (1Co 10:25), with the same life-like reality with which the Diocletian maximum tariff called up the picture of the Galilean woman purchasing her five sparrows."

Robertson: 1Co 10:25

Asking no questions for conscience sake ( mēden anakrinontes dia tēn suneidēsin ).

As to whether a particular piece of meat had been offered to idols before put in the market. Only a part was consumed in the sacrifices to heathen gods. The rest was sold in the market. Do not be over-scrupulous. Paul here champions liberty in the matter as he had done in 1Co 8:4.

Robertson: 1Co 10:26

This verse gives the reason for Paul’ s advice. It is a quotation from Psa 24:1 and was a common form of grace before meals. @@Fulness ( plērōma ).

Old word from plēroō , to fill, here that with which a thing is filled, whatever fills the earth.

Robertson: 1Co 10:27

Biddeth you ( kalei humas ).

To a general banquet, but not to a temple feast (1Co 8:10) which is prohibited. If a pagan invites Christians to their homes to a banquet, one is to act like a gentleman.

Robertson: 1Co 10:28

But if any man say unto you ( ean de tis humin eipēi ).

Condition of third class. Suppose at such a banquet a "weak"brother makes the point to you: "This hath been offered in sacrifice"(touto hierothuton estin ). Hierothuton , late word in Plutarch, rare in inscriptions and papyri, only here in N.T.

Robertson: 1Co 10:28

Eat not ( mē esthiete ).

Present imperative with mē prohibiting the habit of eating then. Pertinent illustration to the point of doing what is expedient and edifying.

Robertson: 1Co 10:28

That shewed it ( ton mēnusanta ).

First aorist active articular participle (accusative case because of dia ) from mēnuō , old verb, to point out, to disclose. See Luk 20:37.

Robertson: 1Co 10:29

For why is my liberty judged by another conscience? ( hina ti gar hē eleutheria mou krinetai hupo allēs suneidēseōs̱ ).

Supply genētai (deliberative subjunctive) after ti . Paul deftly puts himself in the place of the strong brother at such a banquet who is expected to conform his conscience to that of the weak brother who makes the point about a particular piece of meat. It is an abridgment of one’ s personal liberty in the interest of the weak brother. Two individualities clash. The only reason is love which builds up (1Co 8:2 and all of chapter 1Co 13:1-13). There is this eternal collision between the forces of progress and reaction. If they work together, they must consider the welfare of each other.

Robertson: 1Co 10:30

@@Paul carries on the supposed objective to his principle of love. Why incur the risk of being evil spoken of (blasphēmoumai ) for the sake of maintaining one’ s liberty? Is it worth it? See note on Rom 14:6 where Paul justifies the conscience of one who eats the meat and of one who does not. Saying grace over food that one should not eat seems inconsistent. We have this very word blaspheme in English.

Robertson: 1Co 10:31

To the glory of God ( eis doxan theou ).

This is the ruling motive in the Christian’ s life, not just having his own way about whims and preferences.||

Robertson: 1Co 10:32

Give no occasion of stumbling ( aproskopoi ).

Late word and in papyri, only three times in N.T. (here; Phi 1:10; Act 24:16). See note on Act 24:16. Here in active sense, not tripping others by being a stumbling-block, as in Sirach 32:21, but passive in Act 24:16.

Robertson: 1Co 10:33

Mine own profit ( to emoutou sumpheron ).

Old word from sumpherō , to bear together, and explains use of verb in 1Co 10:23.

Robertson: 1Co 10:33

That they may be saved ( hina sōthōsin ).

First aorist passive subjunctive of sōzō , to save, with hina purpose clause with same high motive as in 1Co 9:22. This is the ruling passion of Paul in his dealings with men.

Vincent: 1Co 10:16

The cup of blessing ( τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας )

Lit., the blessing: the cup over which the familiar formula of blessing is pronounced. Hence the Holy Supper was often styled Eulogia (Blessing). For blessing , see on blessed , 1Pe 1:3. It is the same as eucharistia ( thanksgiving ), applied as the designation of the Lord's Supper: Eucharist . See 1Co 14:16; 1Ti 4:4, 1Ti 4:5. The cup is first mentioned, perhaps, because Paul wishes to dwell more at length on the bread; or possibly, because drinking rather than eating characterized the idol-feasts.

Vincent: 1Co 10:16

Communion ( κοινωνία )

Or participation . See on fellowship , 1Jo 1:3; see on Act 2:42; see on partners , Luk 5:10. The Passover was celebrated by families, typifying an unbroken fellowship of those who formed one body, with the God who had passed by the blood-sprinkled doors.

Vincent: 1Co 10:17

For ( ὅτι )

Better, seeing that . It begins a new sentence which is dependent on the following proposition: Seeing that there is one bread , we who are many are one body . Paul is deducing the mutual communion of believers from the fact of their communion with their common Lord. By each and all receiving a piece of the one loaf, which represents Christ's body, they signify that they are all bound in one spiritual body, united to Christ and therefore to each other. So Rev., in margin. Ignatius says: " Take care to keep one eucharistic feast only; for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup unto unity of His blood;" i.e., that all may be one by partaking of His blood (Philadelphia, 4).

Vincent: 1Co 10:17

Body

Passing from the literal sense, the Lord's body (1Co 10:16), to the figurative sense, the body of believers, the Church.

Vincent: 1Co 10:17

Partake of ( ἐκ μετέχομεν )

Or partake from . That which all eat is taken from (ἐκ ) the one loaf, and they eat of it mutually , in common , sharing it among them (μετά ). So Ignatius: " That ye come together ἕνα ἄρτον κλῶντες breaking one loaf " (Ephesians, 20).

Vincent: 1Co 10:18

Showing that partaking of the idol-feasts is idolatry, by the analogy of the Israelite who, by partaking of the sacrifices puts himself in communion with Jehovah's altar.

Partakers of the altar ( κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου )

An awkward phrase. Rev., better, bringing out the force of κοινωνοὶ communers: have not they - communion with the altar? The Israelite who partook of the sacrifices (Lev 8:31) united himself with the altar of God. Paul says with the altar rather than with God , in order to emphasize the communion through the specific act of worship or sacrifice; since, in a larger sense, Israel after the flesh , Israel regarded as a nation, was, in virtue of that fact, in fellowship with God, apart from his partaking of the sacrifices. Possibly, also, to suggest the external character of the Jewish worship in contrast with the spiritual worship of Christians. Philo calls the Jewish priest κοινωνὸς τοῦ βώμου partaker of the altar .

Vincent: 1Co 10:20

Devils ( δαιμονίοις )

See on Mar 1:34. Used here, as always in the New Testament, of diabolic spirits. Δαιμόνιον the neuter of the adjective δαιμόνιος divine , occurs in Paul's writings only here and 1Ti 4:1. It is used in the Septuagint, Deu 32:17, to translate the Hebrew word which seems, originally, to have meant a supernatural being inferior to the gods proper, applied among the Assyrians to the bulldeities which guarded the entrances to temples and palaces. Among the Israelites it came to signify all gods but the God of Israel. Compare Isa 65:11, where Gad ( good fortune , probably the star-God Jupiter) is rendered in the Septuagint τῷ δαιμονίῳ the demon . See Rev, O.T. Also Psa 96:5 (Sept. 95), where elilim things of nought , A.V. idols , is rendered by δαιμόνια demons .

Vincent: 1Co 10:21

The cup of devils

Representing the heathen feast. The special reference may be either to the drinking-cup, or to that used for pouring libations.

Vincent: 1Co 10:21

The Lord's table

Representing the Lord's Supper. See 1Co 11:20 sqq. The Greeks and Romans, on extraordinary occasions, placed images of the gods reclining on couches, with tables and food beside them, as if really partakers of the things offered in sacrifice. Diodorus, describing the temple of Bel at Babylon, mentions a large table of beaten gold, forty feet by fifteen, standing before the colossal statues of three deities. Upon it were two drinking-cups. See, also, the story of " Bel and the Dragon," vv. 10-15. The sacredness of the table in heathen worship is apparent from the manner in which it is combined with the altar in solemn formulae; as ara et mensa . Allusions to the table or to food and drink-offerings in honor of heathen deities occur in the Old Testament: Isa 65:11; Jer 7:18; Eze 16:18, Eze 16:19; Eze 23:41. In Mal 1:7, the altar of burnt-offering is called " the table of the Lord."

Vincent: 1Co 10:22

Do we provoke - to jealousy ( ἢ παραζηλοῦμεν )

The A.V. does not translate ἢ or , and thus breaks the connection with what precedes. You cannot be at the same time in communion with the Lord and with demons, or will you ignore this inconsistency and provoke God? For the verb, see on Rom 10:19.

Vincent: 1Co 10:22

Are we stronger

The force of the interrogative particle is, surely we are not stronger .

Vincent: 1Co 10:24

Another's wealth ( τὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου )

Lit., that which is the other's . Wealth , inserted by A.V. is used in the older English sense of well-being . See on Act 19:25. The A.V. also ignores the force of the article, the other. Rev., much better, his neighbor's good .

Vincent: 1Co 10:25

The shambles ( μακέλλω )

Only here in the New Testament. It is a Latin word, which is not strange in a Roman colony like Corinth. In sacrifices usually only a part of the victim was consumed. The rest was given to the priests or to the poor, or sold again in the market. Any buyer might therefore unknowingly purchase meat offered to idols.

Vincent: 1Co 10:25

Asking no question

As to whether the meat had been used in idol sacrifice. See on 1Co 2:14.

Vincent: 1Co 10:26

The earth is the Lord's, etc.

The common form of Jewish thanksgiving before the meal. For fullness , see on Rom 11:12.

Vincent: 1Co 10:28

Any man

Some fellow-guest, probably a gentile convert, but, at all events, with a weak conscience.

Vincent: 1Co 10:28

Shewed ( μηνύσαντα )

See on Luk 20:37 It implies the disclosure of a secret which the brother reveals because he thinks his companion in danger

Vincent: 1Co 10:30

By grace ( χάριτι )

Better, as Rev., in margin, with thankfulness: with an unsullied conscience, so that I can sincerely give thanks for my food. Compare Rom 14:6; 1Ti 4:4, 1Ti 4:5.

Vincent: 1Co 10:30

Am I evil-spoken of ( βλασφημοῦμαι )

In the gospels this word, of which blaspheme is a transcript, has, as in the Septuagint, the special sense of treating the name of God with scorn. So Mat 9:3; Mat 26:65; Joh 10:36. In the epistles frequently as here, with the classical meaning of slandering or defaming .

Wesley: 1Co 10:16

By setting it apart to a sacred use, and solemnly invoking the blessing of God upon it.

Wesley: 1Co 10:16

The means of our partaking of those invaluable benefits, which are the purchase of the blood of Christ.

Wesley: 1Co 10:16

The means of our partaking of those benefits which were purchased by the body of Christ - offered for us.

Wesley: 1Co 10:17

For it is this communion which makes us all one. We being many are yet, as it were, but different parts of one and the same broken bread, which we receive to unite us in one body.

Wesley: 1Co 10:18

Christians are the spiritual "Israel of God." Are not they who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar - Is not this an act of communion with that God to whom they are offered? And is not the case the same with those who eat of the sacrifices which have been offered to idols?

Wesley: 1Co 10:19

Do I in saying this allow that an idol is anything divine? I aver, on the contrary, that what the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils. Such in reality are the gods of the heathens; and with such only can you hold communion in those sacrifices.

Wesley: 1Co 10:21

You cannot have communion with both.

Wesley: 1Co 10:22

By thus caressing his rivals? Are we stronger than he - Are we able to resist, or to bear his wrath?

Wesley: 1Co 10:23

Supposing this were lawful in itself, yet it is not expedient, it is not edifying to my neighbour.

Wesley: 1Co 10:24

His own only, but another's welfare also.

Wesley: 1Co 10:25

The apostle now applies this principle to the point in question.

Wesley: 1Co 10:25

Whether it has been sacrificed or not.

Wesley: 1Co 10:26

For God, who is the Creator, Proprietor, and Disposer of the earth and all that is therein, hath given the produce of it to the children of men, to be used without scruple. Psa 24:1

Wesley: 1Co 10:28

That is, for the sake of his weak conscience, lest it should be wounded.

Wesley: 1Co 10:29

I speak of his conscience, not thine.

Wesley: 1Co 10:29

Another's conscience is not the standard of mine, nor is another's persuasion the measure of my liberty.

Wesley: 1Co 10:30

If I thankfully use the common blessings of God.

Wesley: 1Co 10:31

To close the present point with a general rule, applicable not only in this, but in all cases, Whatsoever ye do - In all things whatsoever, whether of a religious or civil nature, in all the common, as well as sacred, actions of life, keep the glory of God in view, and steadily pursue in all this one end of your being, the planting or advancing the vital knowledge and love of God, first in your own soul, then in all mankind.

Wesley: 1Co 10:32

If, and as far as, it is possible.

Wesley: 1Co 10:33

Even as I, as much as lieth in me, please all men.

JFB: 1Co 10:16

Answering to the Jewish "cup of blessing," over which thanks were offered in the Passover. It was in doing so that Christ instituted this part of the Lord's Supper (Mat 26:27; Luk 22:17, Luk 22:20).

JFB: 1Co 10:16

"we," not merely ministers, but also the congregation. The minister "blesses" (that is, consecrates with blessing) the cup, not by any priestly transmitted authority of his own, but as representative of the congregation, who virtually through him bless the cup. The consecration is the corporate act of the whole Church. The act of joint blessing by him and them (not "the cup" itself, which, as also "the bread," in the Greek is in the accusative), and the consequent drinking of it together, constitute the communion, that is, the joint participation "of the blood of Christ." Compare 1Co 10:18, "They who eat . . . are partakers" (joint communicants). "Is" in both cases in this verse is literal, not represents. He who with faith partakes of the cup and the bread, partakes really but spiritually of the blood and body of Christ (Eph 5:30, Eph 5:32), and of the benefits of His sacrifice on the cross (compare 1Co 10:18). In contrast to this is to have "fellowship with devils" (1Co 10:20). ALFORD explains, "The cup . . . is the [joint] participation (that is, that whereby the act of participation takes place) of the blood," &c. It is the seal of our living union with, and a means of our partaking of, Christ as our Saviour (Joh 6:53-57). It is not said, "The cup . . . is the blood," or "the bread . . . is the body," but "is the communion [joint-participation] of the blood . . . body." If the bread be changed into the literal body of Christ, where is the sign of the sacrament? Romanists eat Christ "in remembrance of Himself." To drink literal blood would have been an abomination to Jews, which the first Christians were (Lev 17:11-12). Breaking the bread was part of the act of consecrating it, for thus was represented the crucifixion of Christ's body (1Co 11:24). The distinct specification of the bread and the wine disproves the Romish doctrine of concomitancy, and exclusion of the laity from the cup.

JFB: 1Co 10:17

Rather, "loaf." One loaf alone seems to have been used in each celebration.

JFB: 1Co 10:17

Omit "and"; "one loaf [that is], one body." "We, the many (namely, believers assembled; so the Greek), are one bread (by our partaking of the same loaf, which becomes assimilated to the substance of all our bodies; and so we become), one body" (with Christ, and so with one another).

JFB: 1Co 10:17

Greek, "the whole of us."

JFB: 1Co 10:18

The literal, as distinguished from the spiritual, Israel (Rom 2:29; Rom 4:1; Rom 9:3; Gal 4:29).

JFB: 1Co 10:18

And so of God, whose is the altar; they have fellowship in God and His worship, of which the altar is the symbol.

JFB: 1Co 10:19-20

The inference might be drawn from the analogies of the Lord's Supper and Jewish sacrifices, that an idol is really what the heathen thought it to be, a god, and that in eating idol-meats they had fellowship with the god. This verse guards against such an inference: "What would I say then? that a thing sacrificed to an idol is any real thing (in the sense that the heathen regard it), or that an idol is any real thing?" (The oldest manuscripts read the words in this order. Supply "Nay") "But [I say] that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils (demons)." Paul here introduces a new fact. It is true that, as I said, an idol has no reality in the sense that the heathen regard it, but it has a reality in another sense; heathendom being under Satan's dominion as "prince of this world," he and his demons are in fact the powers worshipped by the heathen, whether they are or are not conscious of it (Deu 32:17; Lev 17:7; 2Ch 11:15; Psa 106:37; Rev 9:20). "Devil" is in the Greek restricted to Satan; "demons" is the term applied to his subordinate evil spirits. Fear, rather than love, is the motive of heathen worship (compare the English word "panic," from PAN, whose human form with horns and cloven hoofs gave rise to the vulgar representations of Satan which prevail now); just as fear is the spirit of Satan and his demons (Jam 2:19).

JFB: 1Co 10:20

By partaking of idol feasts (1Co 8:10).

JFB: 1Co 10:21

Really and spiritually; though ye may outwardly (1Ki 18:21).

JFB: 1Co 10:21

In contrast to the cup of the Lord. At idol feasts libations were usually made from the cup to the idol first, and then the guests drank; so that in drinking they had fellowship with the idol.

JFB: 1Co 10:21

The Lord's Supper is a feast on a table, not a sacrifice on an altar. Our only altar is the cross, our only sacrifice that of Christ once for all. The Lord's Supper stands, however, in the same relation, analogically, to Christ's sacrifice, as the Jews' sacrificial feasts did to their sacrifices (compare Mal 1:7, "altar . . . table of the Lord"), and the heathen idol feasts to their idolatrous sacrifices (Isa 65:11). The heathen sacrifices were offered to idol nonentities, behind which Satan lurked. The Jews' sacrifice was but a shadow of the substance which was to come. Our one sacrifice of Christ is the only substantial reality; therefore, while the partaker of the Jew's sacrificial feast partook rather "of the altar" (1Co 10:18) than of GOD manifested fully, and the heathen idol-feaster had fellowship really with demons, the communicant in the Lord's Supper has in it a real communion of, or fellowship in, the body of Christ once sacrificed, and now exalted as the Head of redeemed humanity.

JFB: 1Co 10:22

By dividing our fellowship between Him and idols (Eze 20:39). Is it our wish to provoke Him to assert His power? Deu 32:21 is before the apostle's mind [ALFORD], (Exo 20:5).

JFB: 1Co 10:22

That we can risk a contest with Him.

JFB: 1Co 10:23

Recurring to the Corinthian plea (1Co 6:12), he repeats his qualification of it. The oldest manuscripts omit both times "for me."

JFB: 1Co 10:23

Tend not to build up the spiritual temple, the Church, in faith and love. Paul does not appeal to the apostolic decision (Acts 15:1-29), which seems to have been not so much regarded outside of Palestine, but rather to the broad principle of true Christian freedom, which does not allow us to be governed by external things, as though, because we can use them, we must use them (1Co 6:12). Their use or non-use is to be regulated by regard to edification.

JFB: 1Co 10:24

(1Co 10:33; 1Co 13:5; Rom 15:1-2).

JFB: 1Co 10:25

Butchers' stalls; the flesh market.

JFB: 1Co 10:25

Whether it has been offered to an idol or not.

JFB: 1Co 10:25

If on asking you should hear it had been offered to idols, a scruple would arise in your conscience which was needless, and never would have arisen had you asked no questions.

JFB: 1Co 10:26

The ground on which such eating without questioning is justified is, the earth and all its contents ("the fulness thereof," Psa 20:1; Psa 50:12), including all meats, belong to the Lord, and are appointed for our use; and where conscience suggests no scruple, all are to be eaten (Rom 14:14, Rom 14:20; 1Ti 4:4-5; compare Act 10:15).

JFB: 1Co 10:27

Tacitly implying, they would be as well not to go, but yet not forbidding them to go (1Co 10:9) [GROTIUS]. The feast is not an idol feast, but a general entertainment, at which, however, there might be meat that had been offered to an idol.

JFB: 1Co 10:27

(See on 1Co 10:25).

JFB: 1Co 10:28

A weak Christian at table, wishing to warn his brother.

JFB: 1Co 10:28

The oldest manuscripts omit "unto idols." At a heathen's table the expression, offensive to him, would naturally be avoided.

JFB: 1Co 10:28

Not to cause a stumbling-block to the conscience of thy weak brother (1Co 8:10-12).

JFB: 1Co 10:28

Not in the oldest manuscripts.

JFB: 1Co 10:29

The weak brother introduced in 1Co 10:28.

JFB: 1Co 10:29

Paul passes to the first person, to teach his converts by putting himself as it were in their position. The Greek terms for "the other" and "another" are distinct. "The other" is the one with whom Paul's and his Corinthian converts' concern is; "another" is any other with whom he and they have no concern. If a guest know the meat to be idol meat while I know it not, I have "liberty" to eat without being condemned by his "conscience" [GROTIUS]. Thus the "for," &c., is an argument for 1Co 10:27, "Eat, asking no questions." Or, Why should I give occasion by the rash use of my liberty that another should condemn it [ESTIUS], or that my liberty should cause the destruction of my weak brother?" [MENOCHIUS]. Or, the words are those of the Corinthian objector (perhaps used in their letter, and so quoted by Paul), "Why is my liberty judged by another's conscience?" Why should not I be judged only by my own, and have liberty to do whatever it sanctions? Paul replies in 1Co 10:31, Your doing so ought always to be limited by regard to what most tends "to the glory of God" [VATABLUS, CONYBEARE and HOWSON]. The first explanation is simplest; the "for," &c., in it refers to "not thine own" (that is, "not my own," in Paul's change to the first person); I am to abstain only in the case of liability to offend another's conscience; in cases where my own has no scruple, I am not bound, in God's judgment, by any other conscience than my own.

JFB: 1Co 10:30

The oldest manuscripts omit "For."

JFB: 1Co 10:30

Rather, "thankfully" [ALFORD].

JFB: 1Co 10:30

I partake of the food set before me.

JFB: 1Co 10:30

By him who does not use his liberty, but will eat nothing without scrupulosity and questioning whence the meat comes.

JFB: 1Co 10:30

Which consecrates all the Christian's acts (Rom 14:6; 1Ti 4:3-4).

JFB: 1Co 10:31

Contrast Zec 7:6; the picture of worldly men. The godly may "eat and drink," and it shall be well with him (Jer 22:15-16).

JFB: 1Co 10:31

(Col 3:17; 1Pe 4:11) --which involves our having regard to the edification of our neighbor.

JFB: 1Co 10:32

In things indifferent (1Co 8:13; Rom 14:13; 2Co 6:3); for in all essential things affecting Christian doctrine and practice, even in the smallest detail, we must not swerve from principle, whatever offense may be the result (1Co 1:23). Giving offense is unnecessary, if our own spirit cause it; necessary, if it be caused by the truth.

JFB: 1Co 10:33

I try to please (1Co 9:19, 1Co 9:22; Rom 15:2).

JFB: 1Co 10:33

(1Co 10:24).

JFB: 1Co 10:33

Rather as Greek, "THE many."

Clarke: 1Co 10:16

The cup of blessing - The apostle speaks here of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the כוס הברכה cos habberacah , cup of blessing, over which thanks were expressed at the conclusion of the passover. See this largely explained at the conclusion of the notes on Mat 26:75, and in my Discourse upon the Eucharist, 8vo. 2nd edit. 1814

Clarke: 1Co 10:16

The communion of the blood of Christ? - We who partake of this sacred cup, in commemoration of the death of Christ, are made partakers of his body and blood, and thus have fellowship with him; as those who partake of an idol feast, thereby, as much as they can, participate with the idol, to whom the sacrifice was offered. This I have proved at large in the above tract, to which I must refer the reader, as the subject is too voluminous to be inserted here.

Clarke: 1Co 10:17

For we, being many, are one bread - The original would be better translated thus: Because there is one bread, or loaf; we, who are many, are one body. As only one loaf was used at the passover, and those who partook of it were considered to be one religious body; so we who partake of the eucharistical bread and wine, in commemoration of the sacrificial death of Christ, are one spiritual society, because we are all made partakers of that one Christ whose blood was shed for us to make an atonement for our sins; as the blood of the paschal lamb was shed and sprinkled in reference to this of which it was the type.

Clarke: 1Co 10:18

Behold Israel after the flesh - The Jews not yet converted to Christianity: the latter being Israel after the Spirit. As the design of the apostle was to withdraw his converts at Corinth from all temptations to idolatry, he produces two examples to show the propriety of his endeavors

1.    All who join together in celebrating the Lord’ s Supper, and are partakers of that one bread, give proof by this that they are Christians, and have fellowship with Christ

2.    All the Israelites who offer sacrifice, and partake of those sacrifices, give proof thereby that they are Jews, and are in fellowship with the object of their worship: so they who join in idol festivals, and eat things which have been offered to idols, give proof that they are in communion with those idolaters, and that they have fellowship with the demons they worship.

Clarke: 1Co 10:19

What say I then? - A Jewish phrase for, I conclude; and this is his conclusion: that although an idol is nothing, has neither power nor influence, nor are things offered to idols any thing the worse for being thus offered; yet, as the things sacrificed by the Gentiles are sacrificed to demons and not to God, those who partake of them have fellowship with demons: those who profess Christianity cannot have fellowship both with Christ and the devil.

Clarke: 1Co 10:21

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord - It is in vain that you who frequent these idol festivals profess the religion of Christ, and commemorate his death and passion in the holy eucharist; for you can not have that fellowship with Christ which this ordinance implies, while you are partakers of the table of demons. That the Gentiles, in their sacrifices, fed on the slain beasts, and ate bread and drank wine in honor of their gods, is sufficiently clear from various accounts. See my Discourse on the Holy Eucharist, where many examples are produced. The following from Virgil, Aen. viii, verse 179-273, is proof in point: -

Tum lecti juvenes certatim araeque sacerdo

Viscera tosta ferunt taurorum, onerantque canistri

Dona laboratae Cereris, Bacchumque ministrant

Vescitur Aeneas simul et Trojana juventu

Perpetui tergo bovis et lustralibus extis. -

Quare agite, O juvenes, tantarum in munere laudum

Cingite fronde comas, et pocula porgite dextris

Communemque vocate Deum, et date vina volentes

The loaves were served in canisters; the win

In bowls; the priests renewed the rites divine

Broiled entrails are their food, and beef’ s continued chin

Ye warlike youths, your heads with garlands crown

Fill high the goblets with a sparkling flood

And with deep draughts invoke our common god.

Clarke: 1Co 10:22

Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? - All idolatry is represented as a sort of spiritual adultery; it is giving that heart to Satan that should be devoted to God; and he is represented as being jealous, because of the infidelity of those who have covenanted to give their hearts to him

Clarke: 1Co 10:22

Are we stronger than he? - As he has threatened to punish such transgressors, and will infallibly do it, can we resist his omnipotence? A sinner should consider, while he is in rebellion against God, whether he be able to resist that power whereby God will inflict vengeance.

Clarke: 1Co 10:23

All things are lawful for me - I may lawfully eat all kinds of food, but all are not expedient; ου παντα συμφερει· It would not be becoming in me to eat of all, because I should by this offend and grieve many weak minds. See the notes on 1Co 6:12, etc.

Clarke: 1Co 10:24

Let no man seek his own, etc. - Let none, for his private gratification or emolument, disturb the peace or injure the soul of another. Let every man live, not for himself, but for every part of the great human family with which he is surrounded.

Clarke: 1Co 10:25

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat - The case to which the apostle refers is simply this; it was customary to bring the flesh of the animal to market, the blood of which had been poured out in sacrifice to an idol; or, taken more particularly, the case was this; one part of the sacrifice was consumed on the altar of the idol: a second part was dressed and eaten by the sacrificer; and a third belonged to the priest, and was often sold in the shambles. To partake of the second share, or to feast upon the sacrifice, St. Paul absolutely forbids, because this was one part of the religious worship which was paid to the idol; it was sitting down as guests at his table, in token that they were in fellowship with him. This was utterly incompatible with receiving the sacrament of the Lord’ s Supper, which was the communion of the body and blood of Christ. But as to the third share, the apostle leaves them at liberty either to eat of it or forbear; except that, by eating, their weak brethren should be offended; in that case, though the thing was lawful, it was their duty to abstain. See the notes on 1Co 8:1, etc. Hindoos eagerly embrace whatever has been offered to an idol: hence it is common to see the flowers that have been thus offered placed in the hair of a Hindoo. Water that has been thus made sacred is preserved in Hindoo houses, and with it they rub their bodies, and occasionally sip a drop, regarding it as the water of life. - See Ward

Clarke: 1Co 10:25

Asking no questions for consciences sake - Dr. Lightfoot observes, that "the Jews were vexed with innumerable scruples in their feasts, as to the eating of the thing, as well as to the company with which they ate; and even the manner of their eating. Of fruits and herbs brought to the table, they were to inquire whether they were tithed according to custom; whether they were consecrated by the Truma, or whether they were profane; whether they were clean, or touched with some pollution, etc. And concerning flesh set on the table, they were to inquire whether it was of that which had been offered to idols; whether it were the flesh of an animal that had been torn by wild beasts; or of that which had been strangled, or not killed according to the canons; etc., etc. All which doubts the liberty of the Gospel abolished as to one’ s own conscience, with this proviso, that no scandal or offense be cast before another man’ s weak or scrupulous conscience.

From this it is evident that the apostle had the case of the Jewish converts in view, and not the Gentiles. The latter were not troubled with such extraordinary scrupulousness.

Clarke: 1Co 10:26

For the earth is the Lord’ s - And because God made the earth and its fullness, all animals, plants, and vegetables, there can be nothing in it or them impure or unholy; because all are the creatures of God.

Clarke: 1Co 10:27

If any - bid you to a feast - The apostle means any common meal, not an idol festival; for to such no Christian could lawfully go

Clarke: 1Co 10:27

Whatsoever is set before you, eat - Do not act as the Jews generally do, torturing both themselves and others with questions, such as those mentioned in 1Co 10:26.

Clarke: 1Co 10:28

This is offered in sacrifice unto idols - While they were not apprized of this circumstance they might lawfully eat; but when told that the flesh set before them had been offered to an idol, then they were not to eat, for the sake of his weak conscience who pointed out the circumstance. For the apostle still takes it for granted that even the flesh offered in sacrifice to an idol might be eaten innocently at any private table, as in that case they were no longer in danger of being partakers with devils, as this was no idol festival

Clarke: 1Co 10:28

For the earth is the Lord’ s, and the fullness thereof - This whole clause, which appears also in 1Co 10:26, is wanting here in ABCDEFGH, several others, the Syriac, Erpen, Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Vulgate, Itala; and in several of the fathers. Griesbach has left it out of the text: and Professor White says, " Certissime delendum ;"it should most undoubtedly be erased. It has scarcely any authority to support it.

Clarke: 1Co 10:29-30

For why is my liberty judged of another man’ s conscience? etc. - Though in the case of flesh offered to idols, and other matters connected with idolatry, (on which it appears there was much of a tender conscience among some of the Corinthians), it was necessary to sacrifice something to an over-scrupulous conscience, yet the Gospel of Christ did not lay any man under this general burthen, that he must do nothing at which any weak brother might feel hurt or be stumbled; for the liberty of the Gospel must not take for its rule the scrupulosity of any conscience; for if a man, by grace - by the allowance or authority of the Gospel, partake of any thing that God’ s bounty has sent, and which the Gospel has not forbidden, and give thanks to God for the blessing, no man has right or authority to condemn such a person. This seems to be the meaning of these two verses; and they read a lesson of caution to rash judges, and to those who are apt to take offense.

Clarke: 1Co 10:31

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink - As no general rule can be laid down in reference to the above particulars, there is one maxim of which no Christian must lose sight - that whether he eats or drinks of this or the other kind of aliments, or whatever else he may do, he must do it so as to bring glory to God. This is a sufficient rule to regulate every man’ s conscience and practice in all indifferent things, where there are no express commands or prohibitions.

Clarke: 1Co 10:32

Give none offense, etc. - Scrupulously avoid giving any cause of offense either to the unconverted Jews or the unconverted Gentiles, so as to prejudice them against Christianity: nor to the Church of God, made up of converts from the above parties.

Clarke: 1Co 10:33

Even as I please all men - Act as I do: forgetting myself, my own interests, convenience, ease, and comfort, I labor for the welfare of others; and particularly that they may be saved. How blessed and amiable was the spirit and conduct of this holy man

This chapter has already presented the serious reader with a variety of maxims for his regulation. -

1.    As to his own private walk

2.    His domestic duties; an

3.    His connection with the Church of God

Let us review some of the principal parts

1.    We should be on our guard against what are called little sins, and all occasions and excitements to sin. Take heed what company you frequent. One thing, apparently harmless, may lead by almost imperceptible links to sins of the deepest dye. See the example in this chapter

1.    The people sat down to eat and to drink

2.    They rose up to play, dance, and sing: an

3.    They committed fornication, and brought upon themselves swift destruction

2.    However conscious we may be of our own sincerity and uprightness, we should ever distrust ourselves. God has made nothing independent of himself; the soul has no principle of self-dependence either in itself or its attainments: it is wise, powerful, and happy, only while it is depending on infinite wisdom, unlimited power, and endless mercy

3.    The Gentiles were in communion with demons by their idolatrous services. In what communion are those who feed themselves without fear, who eat with the glutton and drink with the drunkard? So they partake of the Lord Jesus who are under the influence of pride, self-will, hatred, censoriousness, etc., and who carry their self-importance and worldly spirit even into the house and worship of God

4.    A spirit of curiosity too much indulged may, in an irreligious man, lead to covetousness and theft: in a godly man, to a troublesome and unscriptural scrupulosity of conscience, productive of nothing but uneasiness to itself, and disturbance to others. Simplicity of heart saves from this, and is an excellent gift

5.    In many actions we have a twofold rule - the testimony of God and charity: and in many things charity is the best interpreter of the testimony. The testimony often permits what charity forbids, because circumstances in time, place, etc., may render a thing improper on one occasion that might be proper on another

6.    Pious Quesnel has well said: Every thing honors God when it is done for his sake; every thing dishonors him when any ultimate end is proposed beside his glory. It is an unchangeable principle of the Christian morality that all comes from God by his love, and all should be returned to him by ours. This rule we should keep inviolate

7.    Though many of the advices given in this chapter appear to respect the Corinthians alone, yet there is none of them that is not applicable to Christians in general in certain circumstances. God has given no portion of his word to any people or age exclusively; the whole is given to the Church universal in all ages of the world. In reading this epistle let us seriously consider what parts of it apply to ourselves; and if we are disposed to appropriate its promises, let us act conscientiously, and inquire how many of its reprehensions we may fairly appropriate also.

Calvin: 1Co 10:16

16.The cup of blessing While the sacred Supper of Christ has two elements — bread and wine — he begins with the second. He calls it, the cup of blessing, as having been set apart for a mystical benediction. ⁵⁷⁴ For I do not agree with those who understand blessing to mean thanksgiving, and interpret the verb to bless, as meaning to give thanks I acknowledge, indeed, that it is sometimes employed in this sense, but never in the construction that Paul has here made use of, for the idea of Erasmus, as to supplying a preposition, ⁵⁷⁵ is exceedingly forced. On the other hand, the meaning that I adopt is easy, and has nothing of intricacy.

To bless the cup, then, is to set it apart for this purpose, that it may be to us an emblem of the blood of Christ. This is done by the word of promise, when believers meet together according to Christ’s appointment to celebrate the remembrance of his death in this Sacrament. The consecration, however, which the Papists make use of, is a kind of sorcery derived from heathens, ⁵⁷⁶ which has nothing in common with the pure rite observed by Christians. Everything, it is true, that we eat is sanctified by the word of God, as Paul himself elsewhere bears witness, (1Ti 4:5;) but that blessing is for a different purpose — that our use of the gifts of God may be pure, and may tend to the glory of their Author, and to our advantage. On the other hand, the design of the mystical blessing in the Supper is, that the wine may be no longer a common beverage, but set apart for the spiritual nourishment of the soul, while it is an emblem of the blood of Christ.

Paul says, that the cup which has been in this manner blessed is κοινωνίαν — the comnunion of the blood of the Lord. It is asked, in what sense? Let contention be avoided, and there will be nothing of obscurity. It is true, that believers are united together by Christ’s blood, so as to become one body. It is also true, that a unity of this kind is with propriety termed κοινωνία ( communion.) I make the same acknowledgment as to the bread Farther, I observe what Paul immediately adds, as it were, by way of explanation — that we all become one body, because we are together partakers of the same bread But whence, I pray you, comes that κοινωνία ( communion) between us, but from this, that we are united to Christ in such a way, that

we are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones?
(Eph 5:30.)

For we must first of all be incorporated (so to speak) into Christ, that we may be united to each other. In addition to this, Paul is not disputing at present merely in reference to a mutual fellowship among men, but as to the spiritual union between Christ and believers, with the view of drawing from this, that it is an intolerable sacrilege for them to be polluted by fellowship with idols. From the connection of the passage, therefore, we may conclude, that (κοινωνίαν) the communion of the blood is that connection which we have with the blood of Christ, when he engrafts all of us together into his body, that he may live in us, and we in him.

Now, when the cup is called a participation, the expression, I acknowledge, is figurative, provided that the truth held forth in the figure is not taken away, or, in other words, provided that the reality itself is also present, and that the soul has as truly communion in the blood, as we drink wine with the mouth. But Papists could not say this, that the cup of blessing is a participation in the blood of Christ, for the Supper that they observe is mutilated and torn: if indeed we can give the name of the Supper to that strange ceremony which is a patchwork of various human contrivances, and scarcely retains the slightest vestige of the institution of our Lord. But, supposing that everything else were as it ought to be, this one thing is at variance with the right use of the Supper — the keeping back of the whole of the people from partaking of the cup, which is the half of the Sacrament.

The bread which we break From this it appears, that it was the custom of the ancient Church to break one loaf, and distribute to every one his own morsel, in order that there might be presented more clearly to the view of all believers their union to the one body of Christ. And that this custom was long kept up appears from the testimony of those who flourished in the three centuries that succeeded the age of the Apostles. Hence arose the superstition, that no one dared to touch the bread with his hand, but each one had it put into his mouth by the priest.

Calvin: 1Co 10:17

17.For we are one bread I have already stated above, that it was not Paul’s particular design here to exhort us to love, but he mentions this by the way, that the Corinthians may understand that we must, even by external profession, maintain that unity which subsists between us and Christ, inasmuch as we all assemble together to receive the symbol of that sacred unity. In this second part of the statement, he makes mention only of the one part of the Sacrament, and it is the manner of Scripture to describe by Synecdoche ⁵⁷⁷ the entire Supper by the breaking of bread It is necessary to warn my readers, in passing, as to this, lest any less experienced person should be put off his guard by the foolish cavil that is brought forward by certain sycophants — as if Paul, by mentioning merely the bread, had it in view to deprive the people of the one half of the Sacrament.

Calvin: 1Co 10:18

18.Behold Israel after the flesh He establishes it by another example, that such is the nature of all sacred observances, that they bind us in a kind of fellowship with God. For the law of Moses admits no one to a feast upon a sacrifice, but the man who has duly prepared himself. I speak not of priests merely, but of those among the common people who eat of the remains of the sacrifice. Hence it follows, that all who eat of the flesh of the sacrificed victim, are partakers with the altar, that is, of the sanctification, with which God has set apart his Temple, and the sacred rites that are performed in it.

This expression after the flesh, may seem to be added in order that the Corinthians, on comparing the two, might set a higher value on the efficacy of our Supper. “If there was so much virtue in the ancient figures and in those rudiments of youthful education, how much more must we reckon that there is in our mysteries, in which God shines forth much more fully upon us!” At the same time, it is more simple, in my opinion, to say that Paul intended merely by this mark to distinguish the Jews that were still under the law from those that had been converted to Christ. Now there was a contrast that remained to be made — that if the sacred rites appointed by God sanctify those who observe them, pollution, on the other hand, is contracted from the sacred rites rendered to idols. ⁵⁷⁸ For it is God alone that sanctifies, and hence all strange gods pollute. ⁵⁷⁹ Again, if mysteries ⁵⁸⁰ unite and connect believers with God, it follows, that the wicked are in like manner introduced by their superstitious rites into fellowship ⁵⁸¹ with idols. But the Apostle, before proceeding to this, answers by an anthypophora ⁵⁸² (anticipation) a question that might be proposed by way of objection.

Calvin: 1Co 10:19

19.What do I say then? It might seem at first view as if the Apostle either argued inconclusively, or ascribed to idols something of existence and of power. Now it might readily be objected — “What comparison is there between the living God and idols? God connects us with himself by the sacraments. Be it so. How comes it that idols, which are nothing, (1Co 8:4,) have so much power, as to be able to do the like? Do you think that idols are anything, or can do anything?” He answers, that he does not look to the idols themselves; ⁵⁸³ but rather has in view the intention of those who sacrifice to idols. For that was the source of the pollution that he had indirectly pointed out. He confesses, therefore, that an idol is nothing. He confesses that it is a mere delusion when the Gentiles take it upon them to go through solemn rites of dedication, ⁵⁸⁴ and that the creatures of God are not polluted by such fooleries. But as the design of them is superstitious and condemnable, and as the work is base, he infers, that all who connect themselves with them as associates, are involved in pollution.

Calvin: 1Co 10:20

20.But the things ⁵⁸⁵ that the Gentiles sacrifice. To complete the answer, a negative must be understood in this way: “I do not say that an idol is anything, nor do I imagine it to be endued with any virtue, but I say that the Gentiles sacrifice to the devil and not to gods those things which they do sacrifice, and hence I estimate the work by their wicked and impious superstition. For we must always look to the intention with which a thing is done. He, then, who connects himself with them, declares that he has fellowship with them in the same impiety.” He proceeds accordingly with what he had commenced: “If we had to do with God only, those things would be nothing, but, in relation to men, they become faulty; because no one sits down to an idol feast, who does not declare himself to be a worshipper of the idol.”

Some, however, understand the term demons here as meaning the imaginary deities of the Gentiles, agreeably to their common way of speaking of them; for when they speak of demons they meant inferior deities, as, for example, heroes, ⁵⁸⁶ and thus the term was taken in a good sense. Plato, in a variety of instances, employs the term to denote genii, or angels. ⁵⁸⁷ That meaning, however, would be quite foreign to Paul’s design, for his object is to show that it is no light offense to have to do with actions that have any appearance of putting honor upon idols. Hence it suited his purpose, not to extenuate, but rather to magnify the impiety that is involved in it. How absurd, then, it would have been to select an honorable term to denote the most heinous wickedness! It is certain from the Prophet Baruch, (Bar 4:7,) that those things that are sacrificed to idols are sacrificed to devils (Deu 32:17; Psa 96:5.) In that passage in the writings of the Prophet, the Greek translation, which was at that time in common use, has δαιμόνια — demons, and this is its common use in Scripture. How much more likely is it then, that Paul borrowed what he says from the Prophet, to express the enormity of the evil, than that, speaking after the manner of the heathen, he extenuated what he was desirous to hold up to utter execration!

It may seem, however, as if these things were somewhat at variance with what I stated a little ago — that Paul had an eye to the intention of idolaters, for it is not their intention to worship devils, but imaginary deities of their own framing. I answer, that the two things are quite in harmony, for when men become so vain in their imaginations (Rom 1:21) as to render divine honor to creatures, rather than to the one God, this punishment is in readiness for them — that they serve Satan. For they do not find that “middle place” ⁵⁸⁸ that they are in search of, but Satan straightway presents himself to them, as an object of adoration, whenever they have turned their back upon the true God.

I would not that ye If the term demon were used in an indifferent sense, how spiritless were Paul’s statement here, while, instead of this, it has the greatest weight and severity against idolaters! He subjoins the reason — because no one can have fellowship at the same time with God and with idols. Now, in all sacred observances, there is a profession of fellowship. Let us know, therefore, that we are then, and then only, admitted by Christ to the sacred feast of his body and blood, when we have first of all bid farewell to every thing sacrilegious. ⁵⁸⁹ For the man who would enjoy the one, must renounce the other. O thrice miserable the condition of those ⁵⁹⁰ who, from fear of displeasing men, do not hesitate to pollute themselves with unlawful superstitions! For, by acting in this way, they voluntarily renounce fellowship with Christ, and obstruct their approach to his health-giving table.

Calvin: 1Co 10:22

22.Do we provoke the Lord ? Having laid down the doctrine, he assumes a more vehement tone, from observing, that what was a most atrocious offense against God was regarded as nothing, or, at least, was looked upon as a very trivial error. The Corinthians wished the liberty that they took to be reckoned excusable, as there is not one of us that willingly allows himself to be found fault with, but, on the contrary, we seek one subterfuge after another, under which to shelter ourselves. Now Paul says, and not without reason, that in this way we wage war against God; for nothing does God more require from us than this — that we adhere strictly to everything that he declares in his word. Do not those, then, who use subterfuges, ⁵⁹¹ in order that they may be at liberty to transgress the commandment of God, arm themselves openly against God? Hence that curse which the Prophet denounces against all those who call evil, good, and darkness, light (Isa 5:20.)

Are we stronger ? He warns them how dangerous a thing it is to provoke God — because no one can do this but to his own ruin. ⁵⁹² Among men the chance of war, as they speak, is doubtful, but to contend with God is nothing short of voluntarily courting destruction. Accordingly, if we fear to have God as an enemy, let us shudder at the thought of framing excuses for manifest sins, that is, whatever stand opposed to his word. Let us, also, shudder at the thought of calling in question those things that he has himself pronounced upon — for this is nothing less than to rise up against heaven after the manner of the giants. ⁵⁹³ (Gen 11:4.)

Calvin: 1Co 10:23

23.All things are lawful for me Again he returns to the right of Christian liberty, by which the Corinthians defended themselves, and sets aside their objection by giving the same explanation as before. “To eat of meats that were sacrificed, and be present at the banquet, was an outward thing, and therefore was in itself lawful.” Paul declares that he does not by any means call this in question, but he replies, that we must have a regard to edification. All things are lawful for me, says he, but all things are not profitable, that is, for our neighbors, for no one, as he immediately adds, ought to seek his own advantage exclusively, and if anything is not profitable to the brethren, it must be abstained from. He, in the next place, expresses the kind of advantage — when it edifies, for we must not have respect merely to the advantage of the flesh. “What then? ⁵⁹⁴ Does a thing that is in other respects permitted by God, come on this account to be unlawful — if it is not expedient for our neighbor. Then in that case our liberty would be placed under subjection to men.” Consider attentively Paul’s words, and you will perceive that liberty, nevertheless, remains unimpaired, when you accommodate yourself to your neighbors, and that it is only the use of it that is restricted, for he acknowledges that it is lawful, but says that it ought not to be made use of, if it does not edify

Calvin: 1Co 10:24

24.Let no one seek his own He handles the same subject in the 14^th Chapter of the Romans. Let no one please himself, but endeavor to please his brethren for their edification This is a precept that is very necessary, for we are so corrupted by nature, that every one consults his own interests, regardless of those of his brethren. Now, as the law of love calls upon us to love our neighbors as ourselves, (Mat 22:39,) so it requires us to consult their welfare. The Apostle, however, does not expressly forbid individuals to consult their own advantage, but he requires that they should not be so devoted to their own interests, as not to be prepared to forego part of their right, as often as the welfare of their brethren requires this.

Calvin: 1Co 10:25

25.Whatsoever is sold in the shambles He has spoken above of dissembling in connection with idolatry, or, at least, as to those actions which the Corinthians could not engage in, without professing themselves to be the associates of the wicked in their superstitions. He now requires them, not merely to abstain from all professions of idolatry, but also to avoid carefully all occasions of offense, which are wont to arise from the indiscriminate use of things indifferent. For, although there was but one kind of offense on the part of the Corinthians, ⁵⁹⁵ there were, at the same time different degrees of it. Now, as to the eating of food, he makes, in the first place, this general statement — that it is lawful to eat, with a safe conscience, any kind of food, because the Lord permits it. In the second place, he restricts this liberty as to the use of it — lest weak consciences should be injured. Thus this conclusion is divided into two parts the first relates to liberty and power as to things indifferent: the second to a limitation of it — that the use of it may be regulated in accordance with the rule of love.

Debating nothing ⁵⁹⁶ ᾿Ανακρίνεσθαι, the word that Paul makes use of, means to reason on both sides, ⁵⁹⁷ in such a way, that the person’s mind vacillates, inclining now to this side, and then to that. ⁵⁹⁸ Accordingly, in so far as concerns a distinction of meats, he frees our consciences from all scruple and hesitation; because it is proper that, when we are certain from the word of the Lord that he approves of what we do, we should have ease and tranquillity in our minds.

For conscience sake — that is to say, Before the judgment-seat of God — “In so far as you have to do with God, there is no occasion for your disputing with yourself, whether it be lawful or not. For I allow you to eat freely of all kinds of meat, because the Lord allows you everything without exception.”

Calvin: 1Co 10:26

26.The earth is the Lord’s He establishes, from the testimony of David, the liberty which he had allowed. (Psa 24:1, and Psa 50:12.) But it will be asked by some one, “What has this to do with the point?” I answer, If the fullness of the earth ⁵⁹⁹ is the Lord’s, there is nothing in the world that is not sacred and pure. We must always keep in view, what the question is of which the Apostle treats. It might be doubted, whether the creatures of God were polluted by the sacrifices of the wicked. Paul says they are not, inasmuch as the rule and possession of the whole earth remain always in the hands of God. Now, what things the Lord has in his hands, he preserves by his power, and consequently sanctifies them. The sons of God, therefore, have the pure use of everything, because they receive them no otherwise than from the hand of God.

The fullness of the earth, ⁶⁰⁰ is an expression which is made use of by the Prophet to denote the abundance of blessings, with which the earth is furnished and adorned by the Lord. For if the earth were stripped of trees, herbs, animals, and other things, it would be like a house devoid of furniture and every kind of utensil: nay more, it would be mutilated and disfigured. Should any one object, that the earth is cursed on account of sin, the answer is easy — that he has an eye to its pure and perfect nature, because Paul is speaking of believers, to whom all things are sanctified through Christ.

Calvin: 1Co 10:27

27.If any one of them that believe not invites you Here follows an exception, to this effect, that if a believer has been warned, that what is set before him has been offered to an idol, and sees that there is a danger of offense being given, he sins against the brethren if he does not abstain. He shows then, in short, that care must be taken not to hurt weak consciences.

When he says — and you are willing to go, he intimates indirectly, that he does not altogether approve of it, and that it would be better if they declined, but as it is a thing indifferent, he does not choose to forbid it absolutely. And, certainly, there could be nothing better than to keep at a distance from such snares — not that those are expressly to be condemned, who accommodate themselves to men only in so far as conscience permits, ⁶⁰¹ but because it becomes us to proceed with caution, ⁶⁰² where we see that we are in danger of falling.

Calvin: 1Co 10:29

29.Conscience, I say, not thine own He always carefully takes heed not to diminish liberty, or to appear to take from it in any degree. “Thou oughtest to bear with the weak conscience of thy brother, that thou mayest not abuse thy right, so as to give occasion of offense to him; but in the meantime thy conscience remains, nevertheless, free, because it is exempted from that subjection. Let not, therefore, the restraint which I impose upon thee as to outward use, become by any means a snare to entangle thy conscience.”

It must be observed here, that the term conscience is taken here in its strict acceptation; for in Rom 13:5, and Tit 1:5, it is taken in a larger sense. “We ought, says Paul, to obey princes, not merely for the sake of wrath, but also for that of conscience ” — that is, not merely from fear of punishment, but because the Lord orders it so, and it is our duty. Is it not reasonable, too, that we should for the same reason accommodate ourselves to weak brethren — that is, because we are to this extent subject to them in the sight of God? Farther, the end of the commandment is love out of a good conscience Is not the affection of love included in a good conscience? Hence its meaning here is, as I have already stated, more restricted, inasmuch as the soul of a pious man looks exclusively to the tribunal of God, has no regard to men, is satisfied with the blessing of liberty procured for it by Christ, and is bound to no individuals, and to no circumstances of time or place.

Some manuscripts repeat the statement — The earth is the Lord’s. But the probability is, that some reader having put it on the margin, it had crept into the text. ⁶⁰³ It is not, however, a matter of great importance.

For why is my liberty It is doubtful, whether Paul speaks in this way of himself, or whether he makes this objection in the name of the Corinthians. If we take it as spoken in his own name, it will be a confirmation of the preceding statement. “In restricting yourself, for the sake of another man’s conscience, your liberty is not thereby made subject to him.” If in the name of the Corinthians, the meaning will be this: “You impose upon us an unjust law, in requiring that our liberty should stand or fall at the caprice of others.” I am of opinion, that Paul says this of himself, but explains it in another way, for hitherto I have been stating the views of others. To be judged, then, I explain here as meaning — to be condemned, agreeably to the common acceptation of the word in Scripture. Paul warns us of the danger that must ensue, if we make use of our liberty unreservedly, so as to give occasion of offense to our neighbors — that they will condemn it. Thus, through our fault, and our unreasonableness, the consequence will be, that this special benefit from God will be condemned If we do not guard against this danger, we corrupt our liberty by our abuse of it. This consideration, then, tends very much to confirm Paul’s exhortation.

Calvin: 1Co 10:30

30.If therefore by grace This argument is similar to the preceding one, or nearly so. “As it is owing to the kindness of God that all things are lawful for me, why should I act in such a manner, that it should be reckoned to my account as a vice?” We cannot, it is true, prevent the wicked from reviling us, nor even the weak from being sometimes displeased with us; but Paul here reproves the forwardness of those, who of their own accord give occasion of offense, and hurt weak consciences, when neither necessity or expediency calls for it. He would have us, then, make a good use of our benefits, ⁶⁰⁴ that the weak may not have occasion of reviling from our inconsiderate use of liberty.

Calvin: 1Co 10:31

31.Whether, therefore, ye eat, or drink Lest they should think, that in so small a matter they should not be so careful to avoid blame, he teaches that there is no part of our life, and no action so minute, ⁶⁰⁵ that it ought not to be directed to the glory of God, and that we must take care that, even in eating and drinking, we may aim at the advancement of it. This statement is connected with what goes before; for if we are eagerly desirous of the glory of God, as it becomes us to be, we will never allow, so far as we can prevent it, his benefits to lie under reproach. It was well expressed anciently in a common proverb, that we must not live to eat; but eat to live ⁶⁰⁶ Provided the end of living be at the same time kept in view, the consequence will thus be, that our food will be in a manner sacred to God, inasmuch as it will be set apart for his service.

Calvin: 1Co 10:32

32.Be not occasions of stumbling to any This is the second point, which it becomes us to have an eye to — the rule of love. A desire, then, for the glory of God, holds the first place; a regard to our neighbor holds the second He makes mention of Jews and Gentiles, not merely because the Church of God consisted of those two classes, but to teach us that we are debtors to all, even to strangers, that we may, if possible, gain them. (1Co 9:20.)

Calvin: 1Co 10:33

33.Even as I please all men in all this As he speaks in a general way, and without exception, some extend it by mistake to things that are unlawful, and at variance with the word of the Lord — as if it were allowable, for the sake of our neighbor, to venture farther than the Lord permits us. It is, however, more than certain, that Paul accommodated himself to men only in things indifferent, and in things lawful in themselves. Farther, the end must be carefully observed — that they may be saved Hence what is opposed to their salvation ought not to be conceded to them, ⁶⁰⁷ but we must use prudence, and that of a spiritual kind. ⁶⁰⁸

Defender: 1Co 10:20

Even though the physical images worshiped by idolaters are nothing but vanity, they do represent a dangerous reality, for demons actually lurk in and around such idols. These demonic spirits are able in certain limited ways to cause temporal blessings or troubles to visit their adherents, thereby impressing them with the validity of their false religion, and binding them ever more securely in the spirit's grasp."

Defender: 1Co 10:23

Here is another principle for testing whether a practice not specifically mentioned in Scripture is right or wrong. Does it "edify" or "build up" another person (Rom 14:21, Rom 14:23; 1Co 6:12, 1Co 6:19, 1Co 6:20)?"

Defender: 1Co 10:31

See note on 1Co 10:23."

Defender: 1Co 10:32

The "church" can be neither Jewish nor Gentile, for in Christ, "there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision" (Col 3:11; Eph 2:11; Gal 6:15)."

TSK: 1Co 10:16

cup : 1Co 10:21, 1Co 11:23-29; Mat 26:26-28; Mar 14:22-25; Luk 22:19, Luk 22:20

the communion of the blood : 1Co 10:20, 1Co 1:9, 1Co 12:13; Joh 6:53-58; Heb 3:14; 1Jo 1:3, 1Jo 1:7

The bread : 1Co 11:23, 1Co 11:24; Act 2:42, Act 2:46, Act 20:7, Act 20:11

TSK: 1Co 10:17

we being : 1Co 12:12, 1Co 12:27; Rom 12:5; Gal 3:26-28; Eph 1:22, Eph 1:23, Eph 2:15, Eph 2:16, Eph 3:6, Eph 4:12, Eph 4:13; Eph 4:25; Col 2:19, Col 3:11, Col 3:15

that : 1Co 10:3, 1Co 10:4, 1Co 10:21, 1Co 11:26-28

TSK: 1Co 10:18

Israel : Rom 4:1, Rom 4:12, Rom 9:3-8; 2Co 11:18-22; Gal 6:16; Eph 2:11, Eph 2:12; Phi 3:3-5

are : 1Co 9:13; Lev 3:3-5, Lev 3:11, Lev 7:11-17; 1Sa 2:13-16, 1Sa 9:12, 1Sa 9:13

TSK: 1Co 10:19

that the : 1Co 1:28, 1Co 3:7, 1Co 8:4, 1Co 13:2; Deu 32:21; Isa 40:17, Isa 41:29; 2Co 12:11

TSK: 1Co 10:20

sacrifice : Lev 17:7; Deu 32:16, Deu 32:17; 2Ch 11:15; Psa 106:37-39; 2Co 4:4; Rev 9:20

TSK: 1Co 10:21

cannot drink : 1Co 10:16, 1Co 8:10; Deu 32:37, Deu 32:38; 1Ki 18:21; Mat 6:24; 2Co 6:15-17

TSK: 1Co 10:22

we provoke : Exo 20:5, Exo 34:14; Deu 4:24, Deu 6:15, Deu 32:16, Deu 32:21; Jos 24:19; Psa 78:58; Zep 1:18

are : Job 9:4, Job 40:9-14; Eze 22:14; Heb 10:31

TSK: 1Co 10:23

things are lawful : 1Co 6:12, 1Co 8:9; Rom 14:15, Rom 14:20

edify : 1Co 8:1, 1Co 14:3-5, 1Co 14:12, 1Co 14:17, 1Co 14:26; Rom 14:19, Rom 15:1, Rom 15:2; 2Co 12:19; Eph 4:29; 1Th 5:11; 1Ti 1:4

TSK: 1Co 10:24

seek : 1Co 10:33, 1Co 9:19-23, 1Co 13:5; Phi 2:4, Phi 2:5, Phi 2:21

TSK: 1Co 10:25

sold : Rom 14:14; 1Ti 4:4; Tit 1:15

for : 1Co 10:27-29, 1Co 8:7; Rom 13:5

TSK: 1Co 10:26

1Co 10:28; Exo 19:5; Deu 10:14; Job 41:11; Psa 24:1, Psa 50:12; 1Ti 6:17

TSK: 1Co 10:27

bid : 1Co 5:9-11; Luk 5:29, Luk 5:30, Luk 15:23, Luk 19:7

whatsoever : Luk 10:7

for : 1Co 10:25; 2Co 1:13, 2Co 4:2, 2Co 5:11

TSK: 1Co 10:28

eat : 1Co 8:10-13; Rom 14:15

for : 1Co 10:26; Exo 9:29; Deu 10:14; Psa 24:1, Psa 115:16; Jer 27:5, Jer 27:6; Mat 6:31, Mat 6:32

TSK: 1Co 10:29

not : 1Co 10:32, 1Co 8:9-13; Rom 14:15-21

why : Rom 14:16; 2Co 8:21; 1Th 5:22

TSK: 1Co 10:30

grace : or, thanksgiving

for which : Rom 14:6; 1Ti 4:3, 1Ti 4:4

TSK: 1Co 10:31

Whether : The apostle concludes the subject by giving them a general rule, sufficient to regulate every man’ s conscience and practice - that whether they eat, or drink, or whatsoever they do, to do it all with an habitual aim to the glory of God; by considering his precepts, and the propriety, expediency, appearance, and tendency of their actions.

ye eat : 1Co 7:34; Deu 12:7, Deu 12:12, Deu 12:18; Neh 8:16-18; Zec 7:5, Zec 7:6; Luk 11:41; Col 3:17, Col 3:23; 1Pe 4:11

TSK: 1Co 10:32

none : 1Co 10:33, 1Co 8:13; Rom 14:13; 2Co 6:3; Phi 1:10

Gentiles : or, Greeks

the church : 1Co 11:22; Act 20:28; 1Ti 3:5, 1Ti 3:15

TSK: 1Co 10:33

1Co 10:24, 1Co 9:19-23; Rom 15:2, Rom 15:3; 2Co 11:28, 2Co 11:29, 2Co 12:19

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: 1Co 10:16

The cup of blessing which we bless - The design of this verse and the following verses seems to be, to prove that Christians, by partaking of the Lord’ s Supper, are solemnly set apart to the service of the Lord Jesus; that they acknowledge Him as their Lord, and dedicate themselves to him, and that as they could not and ought not to be devoted to idols and to the Lord Jesus at the same time, so they ought not to participate in the feasts in honor of idols, or in the celebrations in which idolaters would be engaged; see 1Co 10:21. He states, therefore:

(1) That Christians are "united"and dedicated to Christ in the communion; 1Co 10:16-17.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 hat this was true of the Israelites, that they were one people, devoted by the service of the altar to the same God, 1Co 10:18.

\caps1 (3) t\caps0 hat though an idol was nothing, yet the pagan actually sacrificed to devils, and Christians ought not to partake with them; 1Co 10:19-21. The phrase "cup of blessing"evidently refers to the wine used in the celebration of the Lord’ s Supper. it is called "the cup of blessing"because over it Christians praise or bless God for his mercy in providing redemption. It is not because it is the means of conveying a blessing to the souls of those who partake of it - though that is true - but because thanksgiving, blessing, and praise were rendered to God in the celebration, for the benefits of redemption; see Note, Mat 26:26. Or it may mean, in accordance with a well known Hebraism, "the blessed cup;"the cup that is blessed. This is the more literal interpretation; and it is adopted by Calvin, Beza, Doddridge, and others.

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

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

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

Barnes: 1Co 10:17

For we - We Christians. "Being many."Greek "The many"( οἱ πολλοί hoi polloi ). This idea is not, as our translation would seem to indicate, that Christians were numerous, but that "all"(for οἱ πολλοί hoi polloi is here evidently used in the sense of παντες pantes , "all") were united, and constituted one society.

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

And one body - One society; united together.

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

Barnes: 1Co 10:18

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

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

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

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

Barnes: 1Co 10:19

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

That the idol is anything? - That the block of wood or stone is a real living object of worship, to be dreaded or loved? See the note at 1Co 8:4.

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

Barnes: 1Co 10:20

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

They sacrifice to devils - ( δαιμονίοις daimoniois , "demons"). The pagans used the word demon either in a good or a bad sense. They applied it commonly to spirits that were supposed to be inferior to the supreme God; genii; attending spirits; or, as they called them, divinities, or gods. A part were in their view good, and a part evil. Socrates supposed that such a demon or genius attended him, who suggested good thoughts to him, and who was his protector. As these beings were good and well disposed, it was not supposed to be necessary to offer any sacrifices in order to appease them. But a large portion of those genii were supposed to be evil and wicked, and hence, the necessity of attempting to appease their wrath by sacrifices and bloody offerings. It was therefore true, as the apostle says, that the sacrifices of the pagan were made, usually at least, to devils or to evil spirits.

Many of these spirits were supposed to be the souls of departed people, who were entitled to worship after death, having been enrolled among the gods. The word "demons,"among the Jews, was employed only to designate evil beings. It is not implied in their writings to good angels or to blessed spirits, but to evil angels, to idols, to false gods. Thus, in the Septuagint the word is used to translate אלילים Elilim , "idols"Psa 95:5; Isa 65:10; and שׁד shēd , Shaid , as in Deu 32:17, in a passage which Paul has here almost literally used, "They sacrificed unto devils, not to God."No where in the Septuagint is it used in a good sense. In the New Testament the word is uniformly used also to denote "evil spirits,"and those usually which had taken possession of people in the time of the Saviour; Mat 7:22; Mat 9:33-34; Mat 10:8; Mat 11:18; Mar 1:34, Mar 1:39, et al. See also Campbell on the Gospels, Pre. Dissertation vi. part 1, Section 14-16. The precise force of the original is not, however, conveyed by our translation. It is not true that the pagans sacrificed to "devils,"in the common and popular sense of that word, meaning thereby the apostate angel and the spirits under his direction; for the pagans were as ignorant of their existence as they were of the true God; and it is not true that they designed to worship such beings. But it is true:

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

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 hey worshipped "demons;"beings that they regarded as inferior to the true God; created spirits, or the spirits of people that had been enrolled among the number of the gods.

\caps1 (3) i\caps0 t was true that many of these beings were supposed to be malign and evil in their nature, and that their worship was designed to deprecate their wrath. So that, although an idol was nothing in itself, the gold or wood of which it was made was inanimate, and incapable of aiding or injuring them; and although there were no real beings such as the pagans supposed - no genii or inferior gods; yet they "designed"to offer sacrifice to such beings, and to deprecate their wrath. To join them in this, therefore, would be to express the belief that there were such beings, and that they ought to be worshipped, and that their wrath should be deprecated.

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

Barnes: 1Co 10:21

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

And the cup of devils - Demons; 1Co 10:20. In the feasts in honor of the gods, wine was poured out as a libation, or drank by the worshippers; see Virgil, Aeneas viii. 273. The custom of drinking "toasts"at feasts and celebrations arose from this practice of pouring out wine, or drinking in honor of the pagan gods; and is a practice that still partakes of the nature of paganism. It was one of the abominations of paganism to suppose that their gods would be pleased with the intoxicating drink. 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 pagan deity? Can it be supposed that it is a prayer offered to the true God; the God of purity? Has Yahweh 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 pagan god, or it is mockery of Yahweh; and in either case it is improper and wicked. And it may as truly be said now of Christians as in the time of Paul. "Ye cannot consistently drink the cup of the Lord at the communion table, and the cup where a prayer is offered to a false god, or to the dead, or to the air; or when, if it means anything, it is a mockery of Jehovah."Now can a Christian with any more consistency or propriety join in such celebrations, and in such unmeaning or profane libations, than he could go into the temple of an idol, and partake of the idolatrous celebrations there?

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

Barnes: 1Co 10:22

Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? - That is, shall we, by joining in the worship of idols, "provoke"or "irritate"God, or excite him to anger? This is evidently the meaning of the word παραζηλοῦμεν parazēloumen , rendered "provoke to jealousy."The word קנא qaana' , usually rendered by this word by the Septuagint, has this sense in Deu 32:21; 1Ki 14:22; Ezr 8:3; Psa 78:58. There is a reference here, doubtless, to the truth recorded in \caps1 Exo 20:5. t\caps0 hat God "is a jealous God,"and that he regards the worship of idols as a direct affront to himself. The sentiment of Paul is, that to join in the worship of idols, or in the observance of their feasts, would be to participate in that which had ever been regarded by God with special abhorrence, and which more than anything else tended to provoke his wrath. We may observe, that any course of life that tends to alienate the affections from God, and to fix them on other beings or objects, is a sin of the same kind as that referred to here. Any inordinate love of friends, of property, of honor, has substantially the same idolatrous nature, and will tend to provoke him to anger. And it may be asked of Christians now, whether they will by such inordinate attachments provoke the Lord to wrath? whether they will thus excite his displeasure, and expose themselves to his indignation? Very often Christians do thus provoke him. They become unduly attached to a friend, or to wealth, and God in anger takes away that friend by death, or that property by the flames, or they conform to the world, and mingle in its scenes of fashion and gaiety, and forget God; and in displeasure he visits them with judgments, humbles them, and recalls them to Himself.

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

Barnes: 1Co 10:23

All things are lawful for me - See the note at 1Co 6:12. This is a repetition of what he had said before; and it is here applied to the subject of eating the meat that had been offered to idols. The sense is,"Though it may be admitted that it was strictly "lawful"to partake of that meat, yet there were strong reasons why it was inexpedient; and those reasons ought to have the binding force of law."

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

Barnes: 1Co 10:24

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

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

Barnes: 1Co 10:25

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles - In the market. The meat of animals offered in sacrifice would be exposed there to sale as well as other meat. The apostle says that it might be purchased, since the mere fact that it had been offered in sacrifice could not change its quality, or render it unfit for use. They were to abstain from attending on the feasts of the idols in the temple, from partaking of meat that had been offered them, and from celebrations observed expressly in honor of idols; but lest they should become too scrupulous, the apostle tells them that if the meat was offered indiscriminately in the market with other meat, they were not to hesitate to purchase it, or eat it.

Asking no question for conscience’ sake - Not hesitating or doubting, as if it might possibly have been offered in sacrifice. Not being scrupulous, as if it were possible that the conscience should be defiled. This is a good rule still, and may be applied to a great many things. But:

(1) That which is purchased should be in itself lawful and right. It would not be proper for a man to use ardent spirits or any other intoxicating drinks because they were offered for sale, any more than it would be to commit suicide because people offered pistols, and bowie-knives, and halters to sell.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 here are many things now concerning which similar questions may be asked; as, e. g. is it right to use the productions of slave-labor, the sugar, cotton, etc., that are the price of blood? Is it right to use that which is known to be made on Sunday; or that which it is known a man has made by a life of dishonesty and crime? The consciences of many persons are tender on all such questions; and the questions are not of easy solution. Some rules may perhaps be suggested arising from the case before us:

(a)    If the article is exposed indiscriminately with others in the market, if it be in itself lawfill, if there is no ready mark of distinction, then the apostle would direct as not to hesitate.

(b)    If the use and purchase of the article would go directly and knowingly to countenance the existence of slavery, to encourage a breach of Sunday, or to the continuance of a course of dishonest living, then it would seem equally clear that it is not right to purchase or to use it. If a man abhors slavery, and violations of Sunday, and dishonesty, then how can he knowingly partake of that which goes to patronize and extend these abominations?

©    If the article is expressly pointed out to him as an article that has been made in this manner, and his partaking of it will be construed into a participation of the crime, then he ought to abstain; see 1Co 10:28. No man is at liberty to patronize slavery, Sunday violations, dishonesty, or licentiousness, in any form. Every man can live without doing it; and where it can be done it should be done. And perhaps there will be no other way of breaking up many of the crimes and cruelties of the earth than for good people to act conscientiously, and to refuse to partake of the avails of sin, and of gain that results from oppression and fraud.

Barnes: 1Co 10:26

For the earth is the Lord’ s - This is quoted from Psa 24:1. The same sentiment is also found in Psa 50:11, and in Deu 10:14. It is here urged as a reason why it; is right to partake of the meat offered in the market. It all belongs to the Lord. It does not really belong to the idol, even though it has been offered to it. It may, therefore, be partaken of as his gift, and should be received with gratitude.

And the fulness thereof - All that the earth produces belongs to Him. He causes if to grow; and He has given it to be food for man; and though it may have been devoted to an idol, yet its nature is not changed. It is still the gift of God; still the production of His hand; still the fruit of His goodness and love.

Barnes: 1Co 10:27

If any of them that believe not - That are not Christians; that are still pagans.

Bid you to a feast - Evidently not a feast in the temple of an idol, but at his own house. If he asks you to partake of his hospitality.

And ye be disposed to go - Greek, "And you will to go."It is evidently implied here that it would be not improper to go. The Saviour accepted such invitations to dine with the Pharisees (see the note at Luk 11:37); and Christianity is not designed to abolish the courtesies of social life; or to break the bonds of contact; or to make people misanthropes or hermits. It allows and cultivates, under proper Christian restraints, the contact in society which will promote the comfort of people, and especially that which may extend the usefulness of Christians. It does not require, therefore, that we should withdraw from social life, or regard as improper the courtesies of society; see the note at 1Co 5:10.

Whatsoever is set before you ... - Whether it has been offered in sacrifice or not; for so the connection requires us to understand it.

Eat - This should be interpreted strictly. The apostle says "eat,"not "drink;"and the principle will not authorize us to "drink"whatever is set before us, asking no questions for conscience sake; for while it was matter of indifference in regard to eating, whether the meat had been sacrificed to idols or not, it is not a matter of indifference whether a man may drink intoxicating liquor. That is a point on which the "conscience"should have much to do; and on which its honest decisions, and the will of the Lord, should be faithfully and honestly regarded.

Barnes: 1Co 10:28

But if any man - If any fellow guest; any scrupulous fellow Christian who may be present. That the word "any"( τις tis ) refers to a fellow guest seems evident; for it is not probable that the host would point out any part of the food on his own table, of the lawfulness of eating which he would suppose there was any doubt. Yet there might be present some scrupulous fellow Christian who would have strong doubts of the propriety of partaking of the food, and who would indicate it to the other guests.

For his sake that showed it - Do not offend him; do not lead him into sin;, do not pain and wound his feelings.

And for conscience’ sake - Eat not, out of respect to the conscientious scruples of him that told thee that it had been offered to idols. The word "conscience"refers to the conscience of the informer 1Co 10:29; still he should make it a matter of conscience not to wound his weak brethren, or lead them into sin.

For the earth is the Lord’ s ... - See 1Co 10:26. These words are missing in many mss. (see Mill’ s Greek Testament), and in the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic versions; and are omitted by Griesbach. Grotius says that they should be omitted. There might easily have been a mistake in transcribing them from 1Co 10:26. The authority of the mss., however, is in favor of retaining them; and they are quoted by the Greek fathers and commentators. If they are to be retained, they are to be interpreted, probably, in this sense; "There is no "necessity"that you should partake of this food. All things belong to God; and he has made ample provision for your needs without subjecting you to the necessity of eating this. Since this is the case, it is best to regard the scruples of those who have doubts of the propriety of eating this food, and to abstain."

Barnes: 1Co 10:29

Conscience, I say, not thine own - I know that you may have no scruples on the subject. I do not mean that with you this need be a matter of conscience. I do not put it on that; ground, as if an idol were anything, or as if it were in itself wrong, or as if the quality of the meat so offered had been changed; but I put it on the ground of not wounding the feelings of those who are scrupulous, or of leading them into sin.

For why is my liberty ... - There is much difficulty in this clause; for as it now stands, it seems to be entirely contradictory to what the apostle had been saying. He had been urging them to have respect to other people’ s consciences, and in some sense to give up their liberty to their opinions and feelings. Macknight and some others understand it as an objection: "Perhaps you will say, But why is my liberty to be ruled by another man’ s conscience?"Doddridge supposes that this and 1Co 10:30 come in as a kind of parenthesis, to prevent their extending his former caution beyond what he designed. "I speak only of acts obvious to human observation: for as to what immediately lies between God and my own soul, why is my liberty to be judged, arraigned, condemned at the bar of another man’ s conscience?"But it is probable that this is not an objection. The sense may be thus expressed: "I am free; I have "liberty"to partake of that food, if I please; there is no law against it, and it is not morally wrong: but if I do, when it is pointed out to me as having been sacrificed to idols, my liberty - the right which I exercise - will be "misconstrued, misjudged, condemned"(for so the word κρίνεται krinetai seems to be used here) by others. The weak and scrupulous believer will censure, judge, condemn me as regardless of what is proper, and as disposed to fall in with the customs of idolaters; and will suppose that I cannot have a good conscience. Under these circumstances, why should I act so as to expose myself to this censure and condemnation? It is better for me to abstain, and not to use this liberty in the case, but to deny myself for the sake of others."

Barnes: 1Co 10:30

For if I by grace be a partaker - Or rather, "If I partake by grace; if by the grace and mercy of God, I have a right to partake of this; yet why should I so conduct as to expose myself to the reproaches and evil surmises of others? Why should I lay myself open to be blamed on the subject of eating, when there are so many bounties of Providence for which I may be thankful, and which I may partake of without doing injury, or exposing myself in any manner to be blamed?"

Why am I evil spoken of - Why should I pursue such a course as to expose myself to blame or censure?

For that for which I give thanks - For my food. The phrase "for which I give thanks"seems to be a periphrasis for "food,"or for that of which he partook to nourish life. It is implied that he always gave thanks for his food; and that this was with him such a universal custom, that the phrase "for which I give thanks"might be used as convenient and appropriate phraseology to denote his ordinary food. The idea in the verse, then, is this: "By the favor of God, I have a right to partake of this food. But if I did, I should be evil spoken of, and do injury. And it is unnecessary. God has made ample provision elsewhere for my support, for which I may be thankful. I will not therefore expose myself to calumny and reproach, or be the occasion of injury to others by partaking of the food offered in sacrifice to idols."

Barnes: 1Co 10:31

Whether therefore ye eat or drink - This direction should be strictly and properly applied to the case in hand; that is, to the question about eating and drinking the things that had been offered in sacrifice to idols. Still, however, it contains a general direction that is applicable to eating and drinking at all times; and the phrase "whatsoever ye do"is evidently designed by the apostle to make the direction universal.

Or whatsoever ye do - In all the actions and plans of life; whatever he your schemes, your desires, your doings, let all be done to the glory of God.

Do all to the glory of God - The phrase "the glory of God"is equivalent to the honor of God; and the direction is, that we should so act in all things as to "honor"him as our Lawgiver, our Creator, our Redeemer; and so as to lead others by our example to praise him and to embrace His gospel. A child acts so as to honor a father when he always cherishes reverential and proper thoughts of him; when he is thankful for his favors; when he keeps his laws; when he endeavors to advance his plans and his interests; and when he so acts as to lead all around him to cherish elevated opinions of the character of a father. He "dishonorers"him when he has no respect to his authority; when he breaks his laws; when he leads others to treat him with disrespect. In like manner, we live to the glory of God when we honor him in all the relations which he sustains to us; when we keep his laws; when we partake of his favors with thankfulness, and with a deep sense of our dependence; when we pray unto him; and when we so live as to lead those around us to cherish elevated conceptions of his goodness, and mercy, and holiness. Whatever plan or purpose will tend to advance His kingdom, and to make him better known and loved, will be to His glory. We may observe in regard to this:

(1) That the rule is "universal."It extends to everything. If in so small matters as eating and drinking we should seek to honor God, assuredly we should in all other things.

\caps1 (2) i\caps0 t is designed that this should be the constant rule of conduct, and that we should be often reminded of it. The acts of eating and drinking must be performed often; and the command is attached to that which must often occur, that we may be often reminded of it, and that we may be kept from forgetting it.

\caps1 (3) i\caps0 t is intended that we should honor God in our families and among our friends. We eat with them; we share together the bounties of Providence; and God designs that we should honor Him when we partake of His mercies, and that thus our daily enjoyments should be sanctified by a constant effort to glorify Him.

\caps1 (4) w\caps0 e should devote the strength which we derive from the bounties of His hand to His honor and in His service. He gives us food; He makes it nourishing; He invigorates our frame; and that strength should not be devoted to purposes of sin, and profligacy, and corruption. it is an act of high dishonor to God, when he gives us strength, that we should at once devote that strength to pollution and to sin.

\caps1 (5) t\caps0 his rule is designed to be one of the chief directors of our lives. It is to guide all our conduct, and to constitute a "test"by which to try our actions. Whatever can be done to advance the honor of God is right; whatever cannot be done with that end is wrong. Whatever plan a man can form that will have this end is a good plan; whatever cannot be made to have this tendency, and that cannot be commended, continued, and ended with a distinct and definite desire to promote His honor, is wrong, and should be immediately abandoned.

\caps1 (6) w\caps0 hat a change would it make in the world if this rule were every where followed! How differently would even professing Christians live! How many of their plans would they be constrained at once to abandon! And what a mighty revolution would it at once make on earth should all the actions of people begin to be performed to promote the glory of God!

\caps1 (7) i\caps0 t may be added that sentiments like that of the apostle were found among the Jews, and even among pagans. Thus, Maimonides, as cited by Grotius, says, "Let everything be in the name of Heaven,"that is, in the name of God. Capellus cites several of the rabbinical writers who say that all actions, even eating and drinking, should be done "in the name of God."See the "Critici Sacri."Even the pagan writers have something that resembles this. Thus, Arrian Eph 1:19 says, "Looking unto God in all things small and great.’ Epictetus, too, on being asked how anyone may eat so as to please God, answered, "By eating justly, temperately, and thankfully."

Barnes: 1Co 10:32

Give none offence - Be inoffensive; that is, do not act so as to lead others into sin; see the note at Rom 14:13.

Neither to the Jews ... - To no one, though they are the foes of God or strangers to him. To the Jews be inoffensive, because they think that the least approach to idol worship is to be abhorred. Do not so act as to lead them to think that you connive at or approve idol worship, and so as to prejudice them the more against the Christian religion, and lead them more and more to oppose it. In other words, do not attend the feasts in honor of idols.

Nor to the Gentiles - Greek "Greeks."To the pagans who are unconverted. They are attached to idol worship. They seek every way to justify themselves in it. Do not countenance them in it, and thus lead them into the sin of idolatry.

Nor to the church of God - To Christians. Many of them are weak. They may not be as fully instructed as you are. Your example would lead them into sin. Abstain, therefore, from things which, though they are in themselves strictly "lawful,"may yet be the occasion of leading others into sin, and endangering their salvation.

Barnes: 1Co 10:33

Even as I ... - Paul here proposes his own example as their guide. The example which he refers to is that which he had exhibited as described in this and the preceding chapters. His main object had been to please all people; that is, not to alarm their prejudices, or needlessly to excite their opposition (see the note at 1Co 9:19-23), while he made known to them the truth, and sought their salvation - It is well when a minister can without ostentation appeal to his own example, and urge others to a life of self-denial and holiness, by his own manner of living, and by what he is himself in his daily walk and conversation.

Poole: 1Co 10:16

It is on all hands agreed, that the apostle is here speaking of believers communicating in the sacrament of the Lord’ s supper. By

the cup of blessing he meaneth the cup there, which he so calleth, because we in the taking of it bless the Lord, who gave his Son to die for us, and Christ, for that great love which he showed in dying for us: we are said to bless it, because we, by solemn prayer in the consecration of it, set it apart for that sacred use, and beg of God to bless it to us. This cup (saith the apostle) is the communion of the blood of Christ

The cup is put for the wine in the cup (which is very ordinary). The cup or wine, of blessing signifieth that cup of wine to which the blessing is added, or with which in that holy institution we thankfully remember the death of Christ, and bless his name for that great mercy; and the wine or cup of blessing also, here signifieth our religions action in drinking of that cup of wine so blessed. This, saith he, is the communion of the blood of Christ that is, it is an action whereby and wherein Christ communicates himself and his grace to us, and we communicate our souls to him; so that Christ and believers in that action have a mutual communion one with another. And as it is with the one element in that holy sacrament, so it is also with the other.

The bread which the minister breaketh (according to the institution and example of Christ) for the church to make use of in the celebration of the Lord’ s supper, that is, their action in eating of that bread so broken and divided amongst them, is the communion of the body of Christ an action wherein Christians have a fellowship and communion with Christ.

Poole: 1Co 10:17

Believers, though many yet are one body and declare themselves to be one body mystical, by their fellowship together in the ordinance of the Lord’ s supper; as the bread they there eat is one bread though it be made up of many grains of corn, which come into the composition of that loaf or piece of bread which is so broken, distributed, and eaten; and the wine they drink is one cup, one body of wine, though it be made up of many particular grapes. And they declare themselves to be one body, by their joint partaking of that one bread. Some have from hence fetched an argument to prove the unlawfulness of communicating with scandalous sinners at the Lord’ s table, because we declare ourselves one body with those that communicate: but whether it will (if examined) be cogent enough, I doubt; for one body signifieth no more than one church, and that not invisible, but visible. So as we only declare ourselves to be fellow members of the visible church with those with whom we partake in that ordinance, and the visible church may consist of persons that are bad mixed with the good. So as though, undoubtedly, scandalously wicked persons ought to be excluded from the holy table, yea, and no unbeliever hath a right to it; yet it may reasonably be doubted, whether those that partake with unbelievers, do by it own themselves to be unbelievers; they only own themselves members of that church wherein there are some unbelievers. But the scope of the apostle is from hence to argue, that by a parity of reason, those that communicated with an idolatrous assembly in their sacrifices, declared themselves by that action to be one body with those idolaters.

Poole: 1Co 10:18

Israel after the flesh was the whole seed of Jacob, the whole body of the Jewish church; for believers only were Israelites after the Spirit, Rom 11:6 , called the Israel of God, Gal 6:16 .

Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? If in the Jewish church any persons ate of the flesh of sacrifices offered upon God’ s altar, did they not by that act manifest that they were members of the Jewish church, and owned that God to whom those sacrifices were offered, and that way of worship by which God was so worshipped? By the same reason these Corinthians eating of the flesh of those beasts in the idol’ s temple, which had been offered unto idols, did by that act declare their owning of the idol, and that idolatrous worship which had been there performed, and were really partakers of the idolatrous altar.

Poole: 1Co 10:19

I do not by this contradict what I before said, nor now affirm that an idol is any thing, or the sacrifices offered to it any thing. An idol hath nothing in it of a Deity, nor can it either sanctify or pollute any thing that is set before it; the error is in your action, as you communicate with such as are idolaters; it is your own action that polluteth you, not the idol, nor yet the meat set before it.

Poole: 1Co 10:20

The heathens might not intentionally offer sacrifices to devils, (such a thing can hardly be supposed of men), but actually they offered sacrifices to devils; for they were devils, that is, evil angels, which deluded the poor heathen, and gave answers from the images and statues which they worshipped, believing the true God to be in them: which answers they accounted for oracles. Besides, the apostle saith, they sacrificed to devils, because in God’ s esteem it was so, though not in their intention; God judgeth of men’ s acts of worship and homage pretendedly done unto him, not according to their intention, but according to the truth and reality of the thing: now, really the heathen in their sacrifices paid a homage to devils, though such a thing was far from their intention; and this deserves the consideration, both of the papists, who worship images, and also of those protestants (if any such be) who would excuse the papists in their idolatries from their intentions. The nature of idolatry doth not lie in men’ s intending to worship the creature instead of the Creator, (there were hardly every any such idolaters in the world), but in their actual doing of the thing; and except they can find a direct rule in holy writ ordering the adoration of the Creator in the creature, or before the creature, it is much to be feared, that in the last day God will judge their homage performed to the creature, not to him. Now, saith the apostle, you had need take heed that, by this action, you prove not yourselves to have fellowship with devils instead of Christ and the true and living God.

Poole: 1Co 10:21

The cup of the Lord: we may either take the phrase as signifying all religious communion under one great act of religion, or as particularly signifying having a communion with Christ in the ordinance of the Lord’ s supper, which is called

the cup of the Lord either because God hath instituted and appointed the drinking of it, or because it is done for the honour, glory, and remembrance of our Lord Christ, to remember his death until he come, as the apostle speaketh, 1Co 11:26 . This the apostle tells them they could not drink of, that is, not rightly, and with a good conscience; or not really; no man that is an idolater, or hath communion with idolaters in their idolatrous acts, can have communion with Christ. The same is meant by

the Lord’ s table, and the table of devils So as I cannot see how either an idolatrous church can be a true church, or an idolater a true Christian, unless we will assert, that a body of people may be a true church, that can have no communion with Christ; or a man may be a true Christian, and yet have no communion with Christ. Idolatry, doubtless, both divides the soul from Christ, as he is the Head of a believer, and as he is the Head of the church. To call any body of idolaters a true church, either morally, or metaphysically, is to say to those: Ammi, You are the Lord’ s people, to whom God hath said, Lo-ammi. Let them be what they will, the name of a church belongeth not to them, if (as the apostle affirmeth) they can have no communion with Christ.

Poole: 1Co 10:22

Jealousy is a violent passion in a man, not bearing a companion or a rival as to a thing or person which he loveth. It is in holy writ applied unto God, not to signify any such extravagancy, excess, or vehemence, as attendeth that passion in men, but only his just displeasure at the giving that homage to any creature which is due to him alone. It is most applied to God to express his anger against those who give Divine homage to idols; the worship of God being a great piece of his glory which he hath said he will not give to another, nor his praise to graven images, Isa 42:8 . Hence divines observe, that jealousy is attributed to God in the second commandment, which concerns the more external worship of God, to deter men from the violation of it, Exo 20:5 . So Exo 34:14 Deu 4:24 5:9 6:16 , and in many other texts, it signifieth, that the worship of God is a thing that he is very tender of, and that his will is to endure no creature to share with him in it; and that his wrath shall flame against that man that offers to make any creature such a sharer. So that it is not safe for any to do any thing of that nature, unless he could fancy himself to be stronger than God; for he that doth it, must expect the power and strength of God to be engaged against him. Thus the apostle had dissuaded them from eating meat sacrificed to idols in the idol’ s temple, from the impiety of it, it being a species of idolatry, against which God hath signally revealed his wrath. He returns in the following verses to an argument, by which he had before dissuaded it, 1Co 8:1-13 , as it was against charity, and the duty of love, in which they were indebted to their brethren.

Poole: 1Co 10:23

All things here must necessarily signify many things, or, at least, (as some think), all those things I have spoken of, to eat meat offered to idols, &c. But if we interpret it in the latter sense, it is not true without limitations; for the apostle had but now determined, that to eat meat offered to idols in the idol’ s temple, was to have communion with devils. I had rather therefore interpret all by many, as that universal particle must be interpreted in a great multitude of scriptures. So as the sense is: There are many things that are lawful which are not expedient; that is, considered in themselves, under due circumstances, they are lawful, but considered in such and such circumstances, are not so, because they are not for the profit or good, but the hurt and disadvantage, of others. Thus the apostle himself expounds it in the latter clause of the verse, where he saith, they

edify not that is, they tend not to promote the gospel, or the faith and holiness of particular Christians.

Poole: 1Co 10:24

It is the duty of every one who is a disciple of Christ, not merely to look at his own pleasure or profit, but the profit and advantage of others.

Charity seeketh not her own ( saith the apostle, 1Co 13:5 ), that is, it seeketh not its own with the prejudice of another. So as admit that in this practice there were nothing looked like idolatry and impiety towards God, yet charity or love to your brethren ought to deter you.

Poole: 1Co 10:25

It is possible that butchers, before they brought their meat into the market, might offer some part of it to the idol; or it is possible that the priests, who had a share in the beasts offered to idols, or the people that had offered such beasts, who, also had a share returned them, might out of covetousness come and bring’ it to be sold in the market. The apostle directeth the Corinthians in such cases to make no scruple, but eat of it, if it were commonly sold in the shambles; which argued, that the thing in itself, considered nakedly, was not sinful. But yet he would have them in that case ask no questions, whence it came? Or whether it had not been offered to an idol? For the sake of other men’ s consciences, lest some others standing by should take notice that they bought and ate such meat. Or their own consciences, lest, though the thing in itself, so separated from a sacred use, and returned to its common use, might be lawfully eaten, yet their consciences should afterwards reflect upon them for the doing of it.

Poole: 1Co 10:26

This sentence is taken out of Psa 24:1 . The earth is God’ s, or the Lord Christ’ s, who hath sanctified all things for the use of man, and all the variety of creatures that are in it are sanctified by him. An idol cannot pollute any kind of meat, it hath no such malign influence upon any thing; you may pollute yourselves by your action, eating it in the idol’ s temple, at an idolater’ s feast immediately upon his sacrifice, but the idol itself is no operative thing, nor can cause an ill quality in the meat; let the meat be once returned to its common use, (the idolater’ s sacred mysteries being over), it is the Lord’ s, what he hath appointed for the use of man. In the idol’ s temple they took the meat out of the devil’ s hand, that was indeed unlawful; but if it were once returned to its common use, and sold in the market, they took it out of the hand of God’ s common providence, and every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving, 1Ti 4:4 .

Poole: 1Co 10:27

The apostle puts another case, in which they might lawfully enough eat of meat offered to an idol; that was in case any of their neighbours, that were heathens, invited them to dinner or supper in a private house (some add, or in the idol’ s temple, if it were a feast of friendship, not a feast upon a sacrifice; but I doubt that, and also whether in the idol-temples there were any feasts but upon sacrifices): he determineth it lawful for them to go and eat whatsoever was set before them; but in this case he would also have them

ask no questions for conscience sake

Poole: 1Co 10:28

The meat being out of the idol’ s temple, and returned to a common use, there could be no impiety in eating it, no communion with devils, and partaking of the table of devils, in and by such an action; but yet there might be a breach of charity in the action, that is, in case one were there present, who knew that it had been so offered to the idol, and declared his offence, by telling the Christian that was about to eat, that that meat had been so offered: in that case the apostle commandeth Christians not to eat, and that partly

for his sake that showed it lest they should lay a stumbling block before him, and by their example imbolden him that showed it to do the like, though he doubted the lawfulness of it; and likewise

for conscience sake that is, for their own conscience sake, which through weakness might afterward trouble them for it, though without just cause. He gives them as a reason for it, because

the earth is the Lord’ s, and the fulness thereof that is, because there was other meat enough to eat. This passage, taken out of the psalmist, had a something different application, 1Co 10:26 ; there the apostle used it to justify the lawfulness of their eating such meat, returned again to a common use, and exposed to sale in the shambles; here he useth it to dissuade them from eating, if any let them know it had been offered to the idol.

Poole: 1Co 10:29

By reason of what we had, 1Co 10:28 , (where the apostle forbade eating these meats, in case any at the feast told them they had been offered to idols, both for his sake that told him so, and also for conscience sake), it is most reasonable to interpret those words not thine own in this verse, not thine own only, there being frequent instances in Scripture where the negative particle must be so restrained, as Joh 4:42 6:27,38 .

For why is my liberty judged of another man’ s conscience? For why should my practice in a thing wherein I have a liberty, be censured or condemned by the conscience of another, he being persuaded that what I do, and judge that I have a liberty to do, and may do lawfully, is done by me sinfully, and I by him accounted a transgressor for it; so as though I do a thing that is honest, yet it is not honest in the sight of all men, or of good report; whereas Christians are obliged, Rom 12:17 , to provide things honest in the sight of all men, not in their own sight merely, end to do those things that are lovely and of good report, Phi 3:8 .

Poole: 1Co 10:30

If I by grace be a partaker if I by the goodness of God, whose the earth is, and the fulness thereof; or by the grace of knowledge, by which God hath given me to understand that I may do that, as to which others less knowing stumble; can eat such meat (out of the idol’ s temple) as part of it hath been offered to the idol, or with thanksgiving partake of such meat, (for so cariv signifies, Luk 6:32 17:9 ), why am I blasphemed, or evil spoken of, for that for which I can give God thanks? That is, I ought not to cause another to speak evil of me for using of meat, but rather than run that danger, to abstain from such meat which I could otherwise eat of, and give God thanks: for in so doing I should but abuse my liberty, and instead of giving God thanks, I should grievously offend God, not at all consulting his glory.

Poole: 1Co 10:31

The apostle, in these three last verses, layeth down three rules, to direct Christians how to use their liberty as to things that are of an indifferent nature, neither in themselves commanded nor forbidden in the word of God. His first rule is in this verse, to do whatsoever we do to the glory of God. This is a general rule, not to be restrained to the eating of meat offered to idols, of which the former discourse had been. It is a general rule, not applicable alone to eating and drinking, but to all other human actions. The reasonableness of this rule appeareth from our consideration, that the glory of God was the end of our creation; The Lord hath made all things for himself, Pro 16:4 : and indeed it is impossible it should be otherwise; for whereas every reasonable agent both propounds to himself some end of his actions, and the best end he can imagine, it is impossible but that God also, in creating man, should propound to himself some end, and there being no better end than his own glory, he could propound no other unto himself. The glory of God being the end which he propounded to himself in creating man, it must needs follow, that that must be the chief and greatest end which any man can propound to himself in his actions. God is then glorified by us, when by our means, or by occasion of us, he is well spoken of in the world, or by our obedience to his will: this our Saviour hath taught us, Joh 17:4,6 . No man in any of his actions hath a liberty from this rule; so as though a man, as to many things, hath a liberty to marry or not to marry, to eat meats or not to eat them, to wear this apparel or not to wear it; yet he is not even in such things as these so at liberty, but he ought to look about, and to consider circumstances, which will be most for the honour of God, the credit of the gospel, and reputation of religion. And the judgment of this is to be made from circumstances, the difference of which may make that unlawful which otherwise would be lawful, and that lawful which under other circumstances would be unlawful.

Poole: 1Co 10:32

We use to say, that men are offended when they are grieved or angered; but these offences are not here meant, (as appears by the Greek phrase, ’ Aproskopoi ginesye ) but give no occasion of sin or stumbling. This care he commands us, with reference to all men; for at that time all the world fell under one of these denominations, they were either Jews or Gentiles ( that is, heathens), or the church of God (that is, Christians). It was always a hard matter, if not a thing impossible, for Christians to carry themselves so as not to anger those that were no Christians; but it was not impossible for them so to behave themselves, as not to be to them any just occasion of sin. Much less ought conscientious Christians to give offence to Christians, that made up the church of God, and were with them members of the same mystical body, of which Christ is the Head.

Poole: 1Co 10:33

Even as I please all men in all things that is, in all things wherein the law of God hath left me a liberty; for Paul pleased no man, either in the omission of any thing which God had commanded him to do, or in the doing of any thing which God had forbidden him to do.

Not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved not seeking my own advantage, either the satisfaction of my own mind or humour, or my own gain, but the advantage of others, especially in matters that may any way affect them as to their eternal salvation. Thus Paul, like a good shepherd, goeth out before the sheep, and leadeth them, and, as every true minister should be, is himself an example to the flock of Christ. And this is a third rule to be observed by Christians, as to the use of the liberty which God’ s law hath left them as to any particular actions; notwithstanding that liberty, yet they ought to have respect to the spiritual good and salvation of others, and to do that part which their judgments inform them will be, as least to the spiritual damage and detriment, so most to the spiritual good and profit, of the souls of others with whom they converse.

Haydock: 1Co 10:16

The chalice of benediction, [2] &c. Which the priests bless or consecrate, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, (so called because of the outward appearance of bread) is it not the partaking or communion of the body of the Lord? See St. John Chrysostom here, hom. xxiv. p. 396. and p. 400. See also the Annotations, Matthew xxvi. 26. (Witham) ---

Here the apostle puts them in mind of the partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the sacred mysteries, and becoming thereby one mystical body with Christ. From whence he infers, (ver. 21.) that they who are made partakers with Christ, by the eucharistic sacrifice, and sacrament, must not be made partakers with devils, by eating of the meats sacrificed to them. (Challoner)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Calix benedictionis cui, (or as it is in the Greek) quem benedicimus. See St. John Chrysostom, hom. xxiv. No Catholic now-a-days can declare his faith of the real presence in clearer terms than St. John Chrysostom hath in this, and other places: Greek: oti touto en to poterio on, ekeino esti, to apo tes pleuras reusan, &c. He calls the eucharist, Greek: thusian, a sacrifice.

====================

Haydock: 1Co 10:17

We being many, are one bread. Or, as it may be rendered, agreeably both to the Latin and Greek, because the bread is one, all we, being many, are one body, who partake of that one bread. For it is by our communicating with Christ and with one another, in this blessed Sacrament, that we are formed into one mystical body; and made, as it were, one bread, compounded of many grains of corn, closely united together. (Challoner) ---

From the sacrament of the real body of Christ in the eucharist, he passeth to the effect of this sacrament, which is to unite all those who partake of it, as members of the same mystical body of Christ, which is his Church: and from hence he presently draws this consequence, that such as are members of that body, of which Christ is the head, cannot have any communication with idolaters, or with those that offer sacrifices to idols and devils. (Witham)

Haydock: 1Co 10:18

Behold Israel, according to the flesh. That is, the people that were the offspring of Israel or Jacob. Are not these they who offered sacrifices to the true God, and eat or the sacrifices, which were offered on his altars, and by offering to him such sacrifices, acknowledged him to be their God, and the only true God: and so you, if you partake, and eat of the sacrifices of idolaters, and of what they tell you was offered to their idols, you seem at least, to join with them in acknowledging, and paying reverence to their idols, which are devils: and you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils. ---

Co we provoke the Lord to jealousy? that is, how dare we provoke our Lord, who is a jealous God, and will admit of no rival, by partaking of sacrifices offered to false gods? how dare we thus contemn his power, as if we were stronger than he, or that he could not punish us? (Witham)

Haydock: 1Co 10:19

What then? do I say, &c. He puts this objection, as if it were contradictory to what he had taught before, (chap. viii. ver. 4.) that an idol is nothing, &c. but he answers this objection by saying that all things, that is, all meats are lawful in themselves, but not always expedient, nor edifying, when they give scandal to weak brethren, or when the infidels themselves think that such as eat things offered to idols, join with them in honouring their idols. (Witham) ---

The meaning of this passage is: whilst I advise you to abstain from eating of any thing consecrated to idols, I do not advise you as supposing that these offerings have any power in themselves to defile your souls, in the same manner as by eating of the body and blood of Christ we receive strength to overcome our spiritual enemies. St. Paul here anticipates an objection that might be made by some to whom he was writing. (Estius)

Haydock: 1Co 10:21

In all this discourse, a comparison is instituted between the Christian host and oblation, its effects, conditions and properties, with the altars, hosts, sacrifices and immolations of the Jews and Gentiles; which the apostle could not have done, had there not been a proper sacrifice in the Christian worship. The holy Fathers teach the same with the ancient Councils. This in the council of Nice: The lamb of God laid upon the altar. Conc. Ephes., The unbloody service of the sacrifice. In St. Cyril of Alexandria, in Conc. Ephes., Anath. 11, The quickening holy sacrifice; the unbloody host and victim. Tertullian, de coron. milit., The propitiatory sacrifice both for the living and the dead. This Melchisedech did most singularly prefigure in his mystical oblation of bread and wine; this also according to the prophecy of Malachias, shall continue from the rising to the setting sun, a perpetual substitute for all the Jewish sacrifices; and this, in plain terms, is called the Mass, by St. Augustine, Serm. ccli. 91.; Conc. Cartha. ii. chap. 3. 4. chap. 84. Milevit. 12.; St. Leo, ep. 81. 88. chap. 2.; St. Gregory, lib. ii. ep. 9. 92. &c. &c. See next chapter ver. 24.

Haydock: 1Co 10:23

All things are lawful. This is the same sentiment he has expressed in chap. vi. ver. 12. and in chap. viii. ver. 8. 9. wherein he teaches us, that on some occasions it is necessary to abstain even from things in themselves lawful, as in the case of meats consecrated to idols. (Calmet) ---

Two excellent rules that can serve as guides on these occasions, are the edification of the Church, and the spiritual good of our neighbour. Without the aid of these guides, we go astray ourselves and decoy others, in doing what the letter of the law permits, but what the spirit of the law, charity, forbids.

Haydock: 1Co 10:27

Eat of any thing, &c. Here at length St. Paul prescribes them a rule by which they were to govern themselves, as to meats that they met with. Buy and eat any thing sold in the market, or of any thing that you meet with at the table of infidels, when they invite you, for all are the Lord's creatures, and may be taken with thanksgiving, as we ought to take whatsoever we eat. ---

But if any man say, this hath been sacrificed to idols, do not eat of it for his sake, &c. And why must they not then eat of it? because either he is an infidel that says it: and then by saying so, he may mean that they who eat it, ought to eat it in honour of their gods. Or if a weak brother says so, he thereby signifies, that his conscience judges it not lawful to be eaten; so that in one case, you seem to consent that things are to be taken in honour of idols: in the other, you give offence to your weak brother: and I would have you to be without offence, both to Jews and Gentiles; and not to think it enough that you can eat such things with thanksgiving. It may be asked here why the apostle should not absolutely for bid them ever any thing offered to idols, as this seems a thing absolutely forbidden in the council of Jerusalem? (Acts xv. 23.) To this some answer, that the apostle here expounds the true sense of that decree, which was only to be understood, when eating such meats gave scandal. Others say, the prohibition was only for a short time, and now was out of date. Others take notice, that the prohibition was not general, nor for all places, but only for the new converted Gentiles that were at Antioch, or in Syria and Cilicia, as specified in the decree. (Witham)

Haydock: 1Co 10:29

For why is my liberty? The meaning of this passage is, that though we ought, on some occasions, to abstain from things in themselves lawful, yet, that on other occasions we are by no means obliged to it, particularly when our brother is not thoroughly instructed on that head. (Theophylactus)

Gill: 1Co 10:16

The cup of blessing, which we bless,.... Meaning the cup of wine used in the Lord's supper, which being set apart for that service, is taken up, and the name of the Lord called upon over it; and he is blessed and praised for his wondrous love and grace, in the gift and mission of his Son, to shed his precious blood for us, for the remission of our sins; the whole church joining with the administrator, both in the act of blessing and praise over the cup, and in the participation of it. This cup is so called in allusion to the cup of wine used at common meals, or at the passover among the Jews, which they used to take and bless God with, and give him thanks for their mercies, and was commonly called כוס של ברכה, "the cup of blessing" ^c.

"Three things (says R. Judah ^d) shorten a man's days and years; when they give him the book of the law to read, and he does not read, כוס של ברכה לברך, "the cup of blessing to bless with", and he does not bless, and when he accustoms himself to government.''

Again, so they comment on Gen 21:8 ^e.

"what is the meaning "of the day that Isaac was weaned?" the holy blessed God will make a feast for the righteous, in the day that he weans the people of the seed of Isaac, and after they eat and drink, they give to Abraham כוס של ברכה לברך, "the cup of blessing to bless with"; he says to them, I will not bless, because Ishmael sprung from me; they give it to Isaac, he says to them, I am not fit to bless, for Esau came from me; they give it to Jacob, he says unto them I will not bless, for I married two sisters in their lifetime, which the law forbids me; they say to Moses, take it and bless, he says to them I will not bless, for I was not worthy to enter into the land of Israel, neither in life nor in death; they say to Joshua, take it and bless, he says I cannot bless, for I am not worthy of a son, as it is written, Nun his son, Joshua his son; they say to David, take thou it and bless, he saith unto them I will bless, and it is comely for me to bless; as it is said, "I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord".''

Once more they ask ^f,

"what is a beautiful cup? כוס של ברכה, "the cup of blessing";''

and which, they ^g observe, ought to hold the fourth part of a log of wine. These instances clearly show from whence the apostle borrowed this expression, and which he chooses to make use of because well known to the Jews, and as being very appropriate to the cup in the Lord's supper, he is speaking of:

is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? it is; that is, it is a sign, symbol, and token of fellowship with Christ in his death; it is a means of having communion with him, and of enjoying the blessings of grace which come through his blood; such as righteousness, peace, pardon, and atonement; all which true believers are made partakers of; and this part of the Lord's supper, the cup being drank of, is a testimony and an indication of the same: "the bread which we break"; which is the other part of the ordinance, which, though performed first, is mentioned last, because of the argument the apostle pursues upon it. The act of breaking the bread does not only design the distribution and eating of it, but the manner also in which it is prepared for distribution and eating, namely by breaking it into pieces; and which is aptly expressive of the body of Christ, which was wounded, bruised, and broken for us:

is it not the communion of the body of Christ? it is; for not only believers by this act have communion with his mystical body, the church, but with his natural body, which was broken for them they in a spiritual sense and by faith eat his flesh, as well as drink his blood, and partake of him, of his sufferings and death, endured in his body, and of all the blessings of grace consequent thereon. The apostle's view in this instance, and his argument upon it, is this, that if believers, by eating the bread and drinking the wine in the Lord's supper, spiritually partake of Christ, of his body and of his blood, and have communion with him; then such who eat of things sacrificed unto idols, have in so doing communion with them, and partake of the table of devils, and so are guilty of idolatry, which he would have them avoid.

Gill: 1Co 10:17

For we being many, are one bread and one body,.... The several members of the church of Christ; particular believers are indeed many, considered in themselves, in their own persons; yet by virtue of their union to Christ, which is manifested by their communion with him, they are one bread with him, the bread of life, and one body with his, signified by the bread; they are of one and the same mass and lump, they are incorporated together, they are flesh of his flesh, and one spirit with him: or they are one bread and body among themselves; as bread consists of many grains of corn which have been ground and kneaded together, and make up one loaf; and as the members of an human body are many, and make up one body; so believers, though they are many, yet are one body, of which Christ is the head; one in union with him and one another, and one in their communion together at the Lord's table; and so the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions read, "as therefore the bread is one, so we all are one body"; having communion with Christ and one another:

for we are all partakers of that one bread; in the supper, which is all of the same nature and kind, and is a symbol of the body of Christ, and our fellowship with him and each other. The application designed is this, that as believers, by partaking of the same bread, appear to be the same body, and of the same mass and lump with one another; so such as eat things sacrificed unto idols, appear to be of the same mass and lump with Heathen idolaters: Dr. Lightfoot has very pertinently produced some passages out of Maimonides, concerning mixing, associating, or communion of neighbours in courts on sabbath eves, that so they may enter into each other's houses on the sabbath day, for the illustration of this passage; of which mixing the Jews have a whole treatise in their Misna and Talmud, which they call Erubin; and of which they say ^h.

"but how is this mixture or association? it is thus, they mix together, במאכל אחד, "in one food", which they prepare on the eve of the sabbath; and it is as if they should say, for we are all mixed together, and have all one food; nor does anyone of us divide the right from his neighbour--they do not mix in courts, but בפת שלימה "with a whole loaf" only; though the mass or lump baked may be the quantity of a "seah", yet if it is broken, they do not associate with it; but if it is whole, though it be but the value of a farthing, they mix with it--how do they mix or associate together in the courts? they collect הלה אחת שלימה, "one whole cake", out of every house, and put all in one vessel, in one of the houses of the court--and the whole association being gathered together, blesses the Lord--and eats:''

upon which the above learned writer observes, that if it were customary among the Israelites, to join together in one political or economical body, by the eating of many loaves collected from this, and that, and the other man; we are much more associated together into one body, by eating one and the same bread, appointed us by our Saviour.

Gill: 1Co 10:18

Behold Israel after the flesh,.... So the apostle calls them, to distinguish them from the Israel of God, the spiritual Israel, whether Jews or Gentiles; who are born again, believe in the true Messiah, worship God in a spiritual manner, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in fleshly things; but these were the descendants of Jacob or Israel by carnal generation, were carnal men, in the flesh, in a state of unregeneracy, and were employed in a carnal worship, in the observance of carnal commandments and ordinances; these the apostle directs to, to see, consider, and take notice of what they were doing; from whence some instruction might be taken, for the further clearing of the present point:

are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? yes, they are. The priests and Levites who waited at the altar, and ministered about holy things there, who brought the sacrifices and laid them upon the altar of the burnt offerings, where the altar consumed and devoured one part by fire, and that which was left they ate among themselves; and so as they had communion with one another in eating, they partook of the altar, of the things, or sacrifices of the altar, and showed themselves to be of the Jewish religion, and professed and declared that they worshipped the God of Israel, and would be thought to have communion with him in so doing; in like manner, such who eat of things sacrificed to idols, declared themselves to be idolaters, to be of the Pagan religion, to be worshippers of idols, and to have fellowship with them.

Gill: 1Co 10:19

What say I then?.... Or may be objected to, or inferred from, what I say;

that an idol is anything, or that which is sacrificed to idols is anything? to which must be answered, as the Syriac version reads, לא, "no", by no means; by running the parallel between Christians having communion with the body and blood of Christ, in the Lord's supper, through eating the bread and drinking the wine, the Israelites partaking of the altar, by eating of the sacrifices of it, and men's joining with idols and idolaters, by eating things sacrificed to idols; it follows not that an idol has anything of deity in it, and is to be set upon a level with God, when, as he had said before, an idol was nothing, and what he now said did not at all contradict that; or that things offered to idols are to be had in the same account, or to be equalled to, or be thought to have any thing in them, as the elements of the bread and wine in the Lord's supper, or the sacrifices that were offered by the Israelites on the altar, according to the divine command; he meant no such thing, but only argued from the greater to the lesser, and his sense is more fully declared in the next words.

Gill: 1Co 10:20

But I say,.... This is my sense and meaning,

that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice unto devils, and not to God; reference is had to Deu 32:17 for what the Gentiles sacrificed, though they did not sacrifice intentionally to the idols of gold, silver, wood, and stone, but to God in them, as they pretended; yet inasmuch as in such worship and sacrifices they were directed, instigated, influenced, and assisted by devils, who took up their residence in these idols, and gave forth their oracles from them, they sacrificed to them; and which some have done, as in India and China, professedly and openly, and all other idolaters, eventually, virtually, and covertly:

and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils; as all wicked men have, in the commission of any lust, sin, or immorality; and as all idolaters have in their superstitious practices, and idolatrous worship; and if grace prevent not, will have to all eternity in everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; wherefore the apostle would have the Corinthians flee from idolatry, and all appearance of it, and abstain from eating things offered to idols, of which they could not eat without having fellowship with devils; this he says, to deter them from such practices, which must be very horrible and shocking, and bespeaks in him great care of them, and affection for them.

Gill: 1Co 10:21

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils,.... Not only they ought not, but they could not rightly, truly, and really drink the cup of wine in the Lord's supper, in the true faith of Christ's bloodshed, and his sacrifice offered up for them, in remembrance of his love, and to the honour of his name; and also the cup of wine of libations, poured out and drank to the honour of the Heathen deities; these things are utterly inconsistent; no man can serve two masters, God and mammon, or God and Baal; nor is there any concord between Christ and Belial, or agreement between the temple of God and idols:

ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils; no man can spiritually, however he may externally partake of the entertainment provided, on the table of the Lord, at his supper instituted and kept in commemoration of him; and also with gust and pleasure, and without any concern for the peace of weak minds, and the honour of God, eat things set upon a table in an idol's temple, and before the idol, and as sacrificed unto it.

Gill: 1Co 10:22

Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?.... As they do who are guilty of idolatry in any shape: nothing is more highly resented by God, or stirs him up more to wrath and fury, and to inflict punishment; he cannot bear, nor will he admit of a rival in religious worship; he is a God jealous of his own honour; nor will he give, or suffer to be given by others, his praise and glory to graven images:

are we stronger than he? to give into idolatrous practices, is to proclaim and enter into a war against God; and what madness must this be? who can be so sottish and stupid as to think of succeeding? when God is omnipotent, and man a poor feeble impotent creature, a worm, and but dust and ashes: thus the apostle dissuades from idolatry, and every species and branch of it; partly from its ill effect, in bringing men into fellowship with devils; and partly from the impossibility of practising it, in consistence with a true and real participation of the cup and table of the Lord; and from the absurdity and stupidity of it, and its dangerous consequence, in exposing men to the vengeance of an almighty incensed Being.

Gill: 1Co 10:23

All things are lawful for me,.... All sorts of food are lawful to be eaten, every creature of God is good, there is nothing common or unclean in itself, polluted or polluting; and so things offered to idols may be lawfully eaten, but not as such, or in an idol's temple, or before a weak brother; to do which is contrary to the honour of God, and the edification of the saints: and therefore

all things are not expedient; to be done always, and in all places, and before all persons. The apostle suggests, that though they might be lawful to him, and he might make use of his liberty in eating them; yet they might not be expedient, or of service, but on the contrary hurtful to others; and which therefore ought to be judged a sufficient reason for the omission of them:

all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not; though things of an indifferent nature may be lawfully used, yet they do not always tend to the edification of others, which should be consulted; and when this is the case, they ought to be disused. This is observed in answer to an objection taken from the doctrine of Christian liberty, allowing the free use of all the creatures, and disengaging men from an observance of the distinction of meats and drinks which the apostle grants; and yet argues from his own example, and the edification of the saints, that this is not always to be closely pursued; but believers should forego what they have a right to use, when the peace and welfare of their fellow Christians require it.

Gill: 1Co 10:24

Let no man seek his own,.... His carnal pleasure and private advantage in eating things sacrificed to "idols", to the hurt and disadvantage of his brethren; otherwise it is lawful for a man to seek his own good, temporal, spiritual, and eternal, to seek for the necessaries of life, his spiritual peace and comfort, and his everlasting welfare and happiness; but then he should not only seek his own,

but every man another's wealth, or "that which is another's"; for the word "wealth" is not in the original text. The apostle's meaning is, that a man, in the use of things indifferent, should not seek the gratifying of his sensual appetite or other passions, what may be pleasing or profitable to himself; but should consult the profit and edification of others.

Gill: 1Co 10:25

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles,.... the word μακελλον, rendered "shambles", here used, is a Latin word, and is made use of by Latin writers in the same sense as here, for a place where food was sold ⁱ. The original of the name is said ^k to be this; one Macellus, a very wicked and profane man, being for his robberies and filthy life condemned to die, a place was built in his house by Aemylius and Fulvius, censors, for selling of provisions, and which from his name was called "Macellum". The Syriac version retains the word here, and so do the Talmudists, and Rabbins ^l frequently; who say ^m,

"Nylwqm, the "shambles", and the butchers of Israel, though flesh of them is found in the hand of a stranger, it is free:''

into these places the priests sent to be sold what was offered to their idols, which they could not dispense with themselves, or thought not lawful to make use of; for the Egyptians, as Herodotus says ⁿ, used to cut off the heads of their beasts that were sacrificed, and carry them into the market and sell them to the Greeks, and if there were no buyers they cast them into the river. Now the apostle allows, that such meat that was sold in the shambles might be bought and eat of, but not in an idol's temple; there was a difference between an idol's temple, and eating things sacrificed to idols there, and buying them in shambles or meat market, and eating them at home:

that eat; buy, carry home, dress and eat, in your own houses:

asking no question; whether it was sacrificed to idols, or not:

for conscience sake; either a man's own, which may be hurt, wounded, and defiled, by eating contrary to it, should he know that what he eats had been offered to an idol; whereas if he asks no questions, and knows nothing of the matter, his conscience will not be afflicted: or else another man's that may stand by whilst the meat is bought, and sold; and who hearing questions asked and answered, and yet observes the meat, though sacrificed to idols, dressed and ate by the buyer, his conscience being weak, may be offended and grieved.

Gill: 1Co 10:26

For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof,.... Which words are taken out of Psa 24:1 and to be understood of Christ, who by creation and preservation is Lord of the whole earth, and as Mediator has all in his possession; and having broken down the middle wall of partition, gives his people the free use of all creatures, of the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, the fishes of the sea, and the trees, fruits, and plants of the earth, which are the fulness thereof; and therefore as the saints have a full right from Christ, to make use of all the creatures in a moderate way, and with thankfulness, they need not fear being defiled by any of them; provided they do not act contrary to the honour of God, and in favour of an idol, or against their own conscience, and the peace of weak believers.

Gill: 1Co 10:27

If any of them that believe not,.... In Christ, and make no profession of faith in him; but are infidels to his person, office, grace, righteousness, Gospel, and ordinances, as there were many such at Corinth: "bid you" to a feast; invite you to dine or sup with them in their own houses:

and ye be disposed to go; the apostle does not lay any commands upon them to go, or not go, but leaves them to their own will, inclination, and discretion; for as circumstances might be, it might be either proper or improper to listen to an invitation from such a quarter; but if they were inclined, and did think fit to go, which they might without sin; for as it is lawful to trade, so to eat and drink with unbelievers; then his advice is,

whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no questions for conscience sake; that is, as before, as whether it is offered to idols or not; lest either their own, or another's conscience should be hurt thereby.

Gill: 1Co 10:28

But if any man say unto you,.... Either a weak believer, to prevent the doing of what he thought to be sinful; or the unbeliever, that invites to try the integrity of his Christian guest, and to draw him into a snare:

this is offered in sacrifice unto idols; the meat that is in that dish, or that portion of food which stands in such a part of the table, came out of an idol's temple, and was sacrificed to idols; which with the Jews were forbidden ^o: for

"everything that came out of an idol's temple was forbidden, and was reckoned as the sacrifices of the dead; for it was not thought possible it could be there, and not offered to idols:''

now when any at the feast, either believer or unbeliever, should thus point at any particular dish, and affirm this of it; then the apostle's advice is,

eat not for his sake that showed it: who, if a weak believer, will be grieved and wounded; and if an infidel, will be hardened in his impiety, and be furnished with an opportunity of reproaching the Christians, as variable, insincere, and unfaithful in their religion:

and for conscience sake; which is explained in the following verse:

the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; which words are neither in the Syriac version, nor in the Vulgate Latin, nor in the Alexandrian copy, and some others, and are thought by some to be added, from 1Co 10:26 though the repetition of them is far from being impertinent; since they contain a very good reason why such a man should abstain from things sacrificed to idols, seeing there is such a plenty and variety of creatures for his use, which he has a right to eat of; and therefore is under no necessity to eat of such sacrifices, nor is it any hardship upon him to forbear the use of them.

Gill: 1Co 10:29

Conscience I say, not thine own,.... Which is well informed about these things, and is fully persuaded that an idol is nothing, and that things sacrificed to idols are nothing; and as they cannot profit a man, or help forward his comfort, peace, and happiness, so they cannot hinder them:

but of the others; either the weak brother, or the unbelieving master of the feast; it is for the sake of their consciences such food must not be eaten, lest either the one should be grieved, or the other reproach:

for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? this is not an objection of the Corinthians, setting forth the unreasonableness of being condemned, for the use of their Christian liberty by another's conscience, be he who he will, believer or unbeliever, when they had an undoubted right to such an use, and their own consciences did not condemn them: but they are the words of the apostle, expressing his own sense, that it was not right and fitting that he should make use of his liberty, and eat under such a circumstance as here pointed out, and so his liberty should be condemned as sinful by another man's conscience; since the weak believer would be apt to censure, judge, and condemn him as a libertine, and the unbeliever as an atheist, or one that had no regard to any religion at all; and therefore he reasons, that it was best to abstain from eating, rather than expose his liberty to such a censure and condemnation.

Gill: 1Co 10:30

For if I by grace be a partaker,.... Either of Christian liberty, through the grace of God; or of the creatures God has given men to eat of through his goodness, and which are enjoyed by the saints with thankfulness:

why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? that is, why should I expose myself to evil tongues, the blasphemies and reproaches of men, by eating things of this kind, under this circumstance, when there are so many creatures I can use without offence, and be thankful for? or why should my liberty be reproached through an imprudent use of it, for which I have the utmost reason to be thankful? wherefore upon the whole it is best to deny one's self in such a case, rather than risk one's character, the glory of God, and the honour of religion.

Gill: 1Co 10:31

Whether therefore ye eat or drink,.... Which may principally refer to eating things sacrificed to idols, and drinking the libations of wine offered to them, since this is the subject of the apostle's discourse; in doing of which he directs them to have the glory of God in view, and so to conduct, that that end may be answered: and it may also be applied to common eating and drinking, or to ordinary meals upon food, about which there is no dispute; and which common actions of life are done to the glory of God, when every mercy is considered and owned as coming from him; and when we confess ourselves unworthy of any; and when we ascribe all we have to the free and unmerited goodness of God; and enjoy every mercy of this kind, as a fruit of our Father's love to us, as a blessing of the covenant, and as coming to us through the blood of Christ; when we are contented and satisfied with what we have, and act faith continually on God for future fresh supplies, and give thanks for all we receive: and if this, then much more eating and drinking in an ordinance way should be directed to the glory of God and Christ, as eating the bread, and drinking the wine in the Lord's supper; and which is so done, when it is done in a decent and reverend manner, in the exercise of faith, discerning the Lord's body, eating his flesh, and drinking his blood in a spiritual manner, without dependence on the actions done, and in remembrance of the love of God and Christ.

Or whatsoever ye do; in a natural, civil, or religious respect, in preaching, hearing, praying, fasting, giving of alms, &c. whatever in the closet, in the family, in the church, or in the world, in private, or in public:

do all to the glory of God; God's glory is the end of all his works and actions; in creation, providence, and grace; in election, in the covenant, in the blessings and promises of it, in redemption, in the effectual calling, and in bringing many sons to glory. The same is the end of all Christ's actions, as man and Mediator, of his doctrines and miracles, of his obedience, sufferings, and death in this world, and of his interceding life in the other; who, as he lives to make intercession for us, lives unto God, to the glory of God; and therefore the glory of God should be the end of all our actions: besides, without this no action can be truly called a good one; if a man seeks himself, his own glory, and popular applause, or has any sinister and selfish end in view in what he does, it cannot be said, nor will it be accounted by God to be a good action. The Jews have a saying much like this, כל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים "let all thy works be done to the glory of God" ^p; which one of their commentators ^q explains thus:

"even when thou art employed in eating and drinking, and in the business of life, thou shalt not design thy bodily profit, but that thou mayest be strong to do the will of thy Creator.''

Gill: 1Co 10:32

Give none offence,.... Avoid everything that may be the occasion of offence, of the stumbling and falling of others; whether things indifferent, when they are offensive to weak minds, and grieve, and wound, and stumble them; especially things sinful, which as they offend God, and are therefore called "offences", so they are offensive to the churches of Christ, and are cognizable by them; they are staggering and stumbling to weak believers, when committed by professors of religion; are the means of inducing others to sin, and of hardening profane sinners in their iniquities, and give occasion to the enemy to blaspheme: but things that are good, and are made our incumbent duty, are not to be avoided, though persons may be offended thereat; such as the pure preaching of the Gospel, the profession of it, and submission to the ordinances thereof; for an offence is either taken or given; to give offence is one thing, which we should carefully avoid; and to take it, when there is no just reason for it, is another, and not to be regarded:

neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God; which may be considered as having a peculiar respect to the people of God: the two first of these, namely, Jews and Gentiles, being what constituted the first churches, and this at Corinth, so that they may be thought to be the parts, and the church the whole; and the apostle first mentions the one, and then the other, signifying, that they were not to give offence neither to single persons, nor to the whole church; and particularly in the case of eating things offered to idols, care was to be taken that neither Jews nor Gentiles were offended, being both members of the church. Or these may be considered as including all sorts of persons; for Jews and Gentiles include the whole world, and may here mean all that are without, that have no true faith in Christ, nor any spiritual knowledge of him; and "the church", all such as know him, believe in him, and profess his name: so that the apostle's sense is, that care should be taken that no offence be given to any sort of men, neither to the men of the world, of whatsoever character, nor to professors of religion, and more especially the latter; since offending one of the least of them that believe in Christ, is displeasing to him; and since he was so careful to guard against the offence of them, and will, by his angels, at the last day, gather out of his kingdom all such as offend; and has ordered his churches to mark them which cause offences and divisions; and since it is so hard a thing to reconcile an offended brother, who is harder to be won than a strong castle; though that is not his excellency, yet as it makes the case so difficult, it should be guarded against.

Gill: 1Co 10:33

Even as I please all men in all things,.... The apostle sets himself as an example, though he was far from being a man pleaser, in the bad sense of that phrase; nor must these all things, in which he is said to please all men, be taken in the largest sense; but are to be understood of things indifferent, which might be done or avoided, without breaking the law of or contradicting the Gospel of Christ, or any of its rules and ordinances, to all which the apostle was inviolably attached; nor did he in these things seek to please men, but in all to act the part of a faithful servant of Christ, and steward of the mysteries of grace; see 1Co 9:19. Moreover, it is not to bc thought that in fact he pleased all men; it is certain he did not; but he studied to please them; he did all that in him lay; he took the most proper methods to do it, though they were sometimes ineffectual.

Not seeking my own profit; worldly profit and advantage, riches, wealth, the emoluments of life, ease, rest, and pleasure; and chiefly he means the use of liberty in things indifferent; he was willing to forego all for the good of others:

but the profit of many, that they may be saved; he neglected his own private advantage, and the gratifying of himself in anything which was otherwise lawful, when he saw that would be an offence to others, be an hinderance of the Gospel, and deter any from embracing the Christian doctrine; that so he might be the, means of promoting the spiritual profit and edification of many souls, that they might be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation; He does not say all, but many, knowing that all will not be saved, only the elect of God; and whereas he knew not who these were, nor where they lay, he behaved in this manner to all men, that he might be the instrument of the spiritual good and salvation of the chosen ones among them, by preaching the Gospel to them without offence.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: 1Co 10:18

¹ tn Grk “Israel according to (the) flesh.”

NET Notes: 1Co 10:20

¹ tn Grk “what they sacrifice”; the referent (the pagans) is clear from the context and has been specified in the translation for clarity.

NET Notes: 1Co 10:22

¹ tn The question in Greek expects a negative answer (“We are not stronger than he is, are we?”).

NET Notes: 1Co 10:23

¹ sn “Everything is lawful.” Here again Paul cites certain slogans the Corinthians used to justify their behavior (cf. 6:12-13; 7:1; 8:1, 4). Paul agrees with the slogans in part, but corrects them to show how the Corinthians have misused these ideas.

² tn Grk “builds up.” The object “others” is not expressed but is implied, as v. 24 shows. Paul picks up a theme he introduced at the start of this section of the letter (8:1).

NET Notes: 1Co 10:26

¹ sn A quotation from Ps 24:1; an allusion to Ps 50:12; 89:11.

NET Notes: 1Co 10:28

¹ tc The Byzantine texttype and a few other witnesses (H^c Ψ Ï) essentially duplicate v. 26 at the end of this verse (with γάρ [gar, “for”] in second instead of third position), which itself is a quotation from Ps 24:1 (23:1 LXX). Not only is there a vast number of early, important, and diverse witnesses that lack this extra material (א A B C* D F G H* P 33 81 365 630 1175 1739 1881 2464 latt co), but the quotation seems out of place at this point in the discourse for Paul is here discussing reasons not to partake of food that has been sacrificed to idols. Perhaps scribes felt that since food is from the Lord, to eat meat sacrificed to idols contradicts that belief. Either way, the better witnesses lack the clause which, had it been authentic to v. 28, would have not occasioned such a widespread excision. The evidence is thus compelling for the shorter reading.

NET Notes: 1Co 10:30

¹ tn Grk “about that for which”; the referent (the food) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

NET Notes: 1Co 10:33

¹ tn Although the Greek word translated “benefit” occurs only once in this verse, the Greek article occurs twice. This indicates an implied repetition of the term, which has been included twice in the translation for the sake of clarity and English style.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 10:16

The cup of ^{( n )} blessing which we bless, is it not the ^{( o )} communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

^{( n )} Of thanksgiving: whereupon, that holy banquet was called "eucharist", which is Greek for thanksgiving.

^{( o )} A most effectual pledge and note of your joining together with Christ, and ingrafting to him.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 10:18

Behold Israel after the ^{( p )} flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices ^{( q )} partakers of the altar?

^{( p )} That is, those who yet observe their ceremonies.

^{( q )} Are consenting and guilty, both of that worship and sacrifice.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 10:20

But I [say], that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have ^{( r )} fellowship with devils.

^{( r )} Have anything to do with the demons, or enter into that society which is begun in the demon's name.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 10:21

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the ^{( s )} cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

^{( s )} The heathen and profane people were accustomed to finish up and make an end of their feasts which they kept to the honour of their gods, in offering meat offerings and drink offerings to them, with banquets and feastings.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 10:23

^{( 6 ) ( t )} All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

^{( 6 )} Coming to another type of things offered to idols, he repeats that general rule, that in the use of indifferent things we ought to have consideration not of ourselves only, but of our neighbours. And therefore there are many things which of themselves are lawful, which may be evil when done by us, because of offence to our neighbour.

^{( t )} See before in (1Co 6:13).

Geneva Bible: 1Co 10:25

^{( 7 )} Whatsoever is sold in the ^{( u )} shambles, [that] eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

^{( 7 )} An applying of the rule to the present matter: whatever is sold in the market, you may indifferently buy it as if it were from the Lord's hand, and eat it either at home with the faithful, or being called home to the unfaithful, that is, in a private banquet. But yet with this exception, unless any man is present who is weak, whose conscience may be offended by setting meats offered to idols before them: for then you ought to have a consideration of their weakness.

^{( u )} The flesh that was sacrificed used to be sold in the markets, and the price returned to the priests.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 10:26

For the earth [is] the Lord's, and the ^{( x )} fulness thereof.

^{( x )} All those things of which it is full.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 10:29

Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: ^{( 8 )} for why is my liberty judged of another [man's] conscience?

^{( 8 )} A reason: for we must take heed that our liberty is not spoken of as evil, and that the benefit of God which we ought to use with thanksgiving is not changed into impiety. And this is through our fault, if we choose rather to offend the conscience of the weak, than to yield a little of our liberty in a matter of no importance, and so give occasion to the weak to judge in such sort of us, and of Christian liberty. And the apostle takes these things upon his own person, that the Corinthians may have so much the less occasion to oppose anything against him.

Geneva Bible: 1Co 10:30

For if I by ^{( y )} grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

^{( y )} If I may through God's grace eat this meat or that meat, why should I through my fault cause that benefit of God to turn to my blame?

Geneva Bible: 1Co 10:31

^{( 9 )} Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

^{( 9 )} The conclusion: we must order ourselves in such a way that we seek not ourselves, but God's glory, and so the salvation of as many as we may. In which the apostle does not thrust himself to the Corinthians (even his own flock) as an example, except so that he calls them back to Christ, to whom he himself has regard.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: 1Co 10:1-33

1 The sacraments of the Jews are types of ours;

7 and their punishments,

11 examples for us.

13 We must flee from idolatry.

21 We must not make the Lord's table the table of devils;

24 and in things indifferent we must have regard of our brethren.

Maclaren: 1Co 10:23-33

The Limits Of Liberty

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. 24. Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth. 25. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake. 26. For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. 27. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go whatsoever is set before you eat, asking no question for conscience sake. 28. But, if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof: 29. Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? 30. For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 31. Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: 33. Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.'--1 Cor. 10:23-33.

THIS passage strikingly illustrates Paul's constant habit of solving questions as to conduct by the largest principles. He did not keep his theology' and his ethics in separate water-tight compartments, having no communication with each other. The greatest truths were used to regulate the smallest duties. Like the star that guided the Magi, they burned high in the heavens, but yet directed to the house in Bethlehem.

The question here in hand was one that pressed on the Corinthian Christians, and is very far away from our experience. Idolatry had so inextricably intertwined itself with daily life that it was hard to keep up any intercourse with non-Christians without falling into constructive idolatry; and one very constantly obtruding difficulty was that much of the animal food served on private tables had been slaughtered as sacrifices or with certain sacrificial rites. What was a Christian to do in such a case? To eat or not to eat? Both views had their vehement supporters in the Corinthian church, and the importance of the question is manifest from the large space devoted to it in this letter.

In 1 Cor. 8. we have a weighty paragraph, in which one phase of the difficulty is dealt with--the question whether a Christian ought to attend a feast in an idol temple, where, of course, the viands had been offered as sacrifices. But in 1 Cor. 10. Paul deals with the case in which the meat had been bought in the flesh-market, and so was not necessarily sacrificial. Paul's manner of handling the point is very instructive. He envelops, as it were, the practical solution in a wrapping of large principles; 1 Cor. 10:23-24 precede the specific answer, and are general principles; 1 Cor. 10:25-30 contain the practical answer; 1 Cor. 10:31-33 and 1 Cor. 11:1 of the next chapter are again general principles, wide and imperative enough to mould all conduct, as well as to settle the matter immediately in hand, which, important as it was at Corinth, has become entirely uninteresting to us.

We need not spend time in elucidating the specific directions given as to the particular question in hand further than to note the immense gift of saving common-sense which Paul had, and how sanely and moderately he dealt with his problem. His advice was--Don't ask where the joint set before you came from. If you do not know that it was offered, your eating of it does not commit you to idol worship.' No doubt there were Corinthian Christians with inflamed consciences who did ask such questions, and rather prided themselves on their strictness and rigidity; but Paul would have them let sleeping dogs lie. If, however, the meat is known to have been offered to an idol, then Paul is as rigid and strict as they are. That combination of willingness to go as far as possible, and inflexible determination not to go one step farther, of yieldingness wherever principle does not come in, and of iron fixedness wherever it does, is rare indeed, but should be aimed at by all Christians. The morality of the Gospel would make more way in the world if its advocates always copied the sweet reasonableness' of Paul, which, as he tells us in this passage, he learned from Jesus.

As to the wrapping of general principles, they may all be reduced to one--the duty of limiting Christian liberty by consideration for others. In the two verses preceding the practical precepts, that duty is stated with reference entirely to the obligations flowing from our relationship to others. We are all bound together by a mystical chain of solidarity. Since every man is my neighbour, I am bound to think of him and not only of myself in deciding what I may do or refrain from doing. I must abstain from lawful things if, by doing them, I should be likely to harm my neighbour's building up of a strong character. I can, or I believe that I can, pursue some course of conduct, engage in some enterprise, follow some line of life, without damage to myself, either in regard to worldly position, or in regard to my religious life. Be it so, but I have to take some one else into account. Will my example call out imitation in others, to whom it may be harmful or fatal to do as I can do with real or supposed impunity? If so, I am guilty of something very like murder if I do not abstain.

What harm is there in betting a shilling? I can well afford to lose it, and I can keep myself from the feverish wish to risk more.' Yes, and you are thereby helping to hold up that gambling habit which is ruining thousands.

I can take alcohol in moderation, and it does me no harm, and I can go to a prayer-meeting after my dinner and temperate glass, and I am within my Christian liberty in doing so.' Yes, and you take part thereby in the greatest curse that besets our country, and are, by countenancing the drink habit, guilty of the blood of souls. How any Christian man can read these two verses and not abstain from all intoxicants is a mystery. They cut clean through all the pleas for moderate drinking, and bring into play another set of principles which limit liberty by regard to others' good. Surely, if there was ever a subject to which these words apply, it is the use of alcohol, the proved cause of almost all the crime and poverty on both sides of the Atlantic. To the Christians who plead their liberty' we can only say, Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.'

The same general considerations reappear in the verses following the specific precept, but with a difference. The neighbour's profit is still put forth as the limiting consideration, but it is elevated to a higher sacredness of obligation by being set in connection with the glory of God' and the example of Christ. Do all to the glory of God.' To put the thought here into modern English--Could you ask a blessing over a glass of spirits when you think that, though it should do you no harm, your taking it may, as it were, tip some weak brother over the precipice? Can you drink to God's glory when you know that drink is slaying thousands body and soul, and that hopeless drunkards are made by wholesale out of moderate drinkers? Give no occasion of stumbling'; do not by your example tempt others into risky courses. And remember that' neighbour' (1 Cor. 10:24) resolves itself into' Jews' and' Greeks' and the Church of God'--that is, substantially to your own race and other races--to men with whom you have affinities, and to men with whom you have none.

A Christian man is bound to shape his life so that no man shall be able to say of him that he was the occasion of that one's fall. He is so bound because every man is his neighbour. He is so bound because he is bound to live to the glory of God, which can never be advanced by laying stumbling-blocks in the way for feeble feet. He is so bound because, unless Christ had limited Himself within the bound of manhood, and had sought not His own profit or pleasure, we should have had neither life nor hope. For all these reasons, the duty of thinking of others, and of abstaining, for their sakes, from what one might do, is laid on all Christians. How do they discharge that duty who will not forswear alcohol for their neighbour's sake?

MHCC: 1Co 10:15-22

Did not the joining in the Lord's supper show a profession of faith in Christ crucified, and of adoring gratitude to him for his salvation? Christians, by this ordinance, and the faith therein professed, were united as the grains of wheat in one loaf of bread, or as the members in the human body, seeing they were all united to Christ, and had fellowship with him and one another. This is confirmed from the Jewish worship and customs in sacrifice. The apostle applies this to feasting with idolaters. Eating food as part of a heathen sacrifice, was worshipping the idol to whom it was made, and having fellowship or communion with it; just as he who eats the Lord's supper, is accounted to partake in the Christian sacrifice, or as they who ate the Jewish sacrifices partook of what was offered on their altar. It was denying Christianity; for communion with Christ, and communion with devils, could never be had at once. If Christians venture into places, and join in sacrifices to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, they will provoke God.

MHCC: 1Co 10:23-33

There were cases wherein Christians might eat what had been offered to idols, without sin. Such as when the flesh was sold in the market as common food, for the priest to whom it had been given. But a Christian must not merely consider what is lawful, but what is expedient, and to edify others. Christianity by no means forbids the common offices of kindness, or allows uncourteous behaviour to any, however they may differ from us in religious sentiments or practices. But this is not to be understood of religious festivals, partaking in idolatrous worship. According to this advice of the apostle, Christians should take care not to use their liberty to the hurt of others, or to their own reproach. In eating and drinking, and in all we do, we should aim at the glory of God, at pleasing and honouring him. This is the great end of all religion, and directs us where express rules are wanting. A holy, peaceable, and benevolent spirit, will disarm the greatest enemies.

Matthew Henry: 1Co 10:15-22

In this passage the apostle urges the general caution against idolatry, in the particular case of eating the heathen sacrifices as such, and out of any religious respect to the idol to whom they were sacrificed.

I. He prefaces his argument with an appeal to their own reason and judgment: " I speak to wise men, judge you what I say, 1Co 10:15. You are great pretenders to wisdom, to close reasoning and argument; I can leave it with your own reason and conscience whether I do not argue justly."Note, It is no dishonour to an inspired teacher, nor disadvantage to his argument, to appeal for the truth of it to the reason and consciences of his hearers. It comes upon them with the greater force when it comes with this conviction. Paul, an inspired apostle, would yet, in some cases, leave it with the Corinthians to judge whether what he taught was not conformable to their own light and sense.

II. He lays down his argument from the Lord's supper: The cup 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? Is not this sacred rite an instrument of communion with God? Do we not therein profess to be in friendship, and to have fellowship, with him? Is it not a token whereby we professedly hold communion with Christ, whose body was broken, and blood shed, to procure remission of our sins, and the favour of God? And can we be in alliance with Christ, or friendship with God, without being devoted to him? In short, the Lord's supper is a feast on the sacrificed body and blood of our Lord, epulum ex oblatis . And to eat of the feast is to partake of the sacrifice, and so to be his guests to whom the sacrifice was offered, and this in token of friendship with him. Thus to partake of the Lord's table is to profess ourselves his guests and covenant people. This is the very purpose and intention of this symbolical eating and drinking; it is holding communion with God, and partaking of those privileges, and professing ourselves under those obligations, which result from the death and sacrifice of Christ; and this in conjunction with all true Christians, with whom we have communion also in this ordinance. Because the bread is one, we, being many, are one body, for we are made partakers of one bread, or loaf (1Co 10:17), which I think is thus more truly rendered: "By partaking of one broken loaf, the emblem of our Saviour's broken body, who is the only true bread that came down from heaven, we coalesce into one body, become members of him and one another."Those who truly partake by faith have this communion with Christ, and one another; and those who eat the outward elements make profession of having this communion, of belonging to God and the blessed fraternity of his people and worshippers. This is the true meaning of this holy rite.

III. He confirms this from the Jewish worship and customs: Behold Israel after the flesh: are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar, that is, of the sacrifice offered upon it? Those who were admitted to eat of the offerings were reckoned to partake of the sacrifice itself, as made for them, and to be sanctified thereby; and therefore surely to worship God, and be in alliance or covenant with him, even the God of Israel, to whom the sacrifice was made: this was a symbol or token of holding communion with him.

IV. He applies this to the argument against feasting with idolaters on their sacrifices, and to prove those that do so idolaters. This he does, 1. By following the principle on which they would argue it to be lawful, namely, that an idol was nothing. Many of them were nothing at all, none of them had any divinity in them. What was sacrificed to idols was nothing, no way changed from what it was before, but was every whit as fit for food, considered in itself. They indeed seem to argue that, because an idol was nothing, what was offered was no sacrifice, but common and ordinary food, of which they might therefore eat with as little scruple. Now the apostle allows that the food was not changed as to its nature, was as fit to be eaten as common food, where it was set before any who knew not of its having been offered to an idol. But, 2. He proves that the eating of it as a part of a heathen sacrifice was, (1.) A partaking with them in their idolatry. It was having fellowship with devils, because what the Gentiles sacrificed they sacrificed to devils; and to feast with them upon these sacrifices was to partake in the sacrifice, and therefore to worship the god to whom it was made, and have fellowship or communion with him just as he who eats the Lord's supper is supposed to partake in the Christian sacrifice; or as those who ate the Jewish sacrifices partook of what was offered on their altar. But heathens sacrificed to devils: "Therefore do not feast on their sacrifices. Doing it is a token of your having fellowship with the demons to whom they are offered. I would not have you be in communion with devils."(2.) It was a virtual renouncing of Christianity: You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: you cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and the table of devils, 1Co 10:21. To partake of this Christian feast was to have communion with Christ: to partake of the feasts made in honour of the heathen idols, and made of things sacrificed to them, was to have communion with devils. Now this was to compound contraries; it was by no means consistent. Communion with Christ, and communion with devils, could never be had at once. One must be renounced, if the other was maintained. He who held communion with Christ must renounce that with devils; he who held communion with devils must by that very deed renounce communion with Christ. And what a manifest self-contradiction must that man's conduct be that would partake of the Lord's table, and yet partake of the table of demons! God and mammon can never be served together, nor fellowship be at once had with Christ and Satan. Those who communicate with devils must virtually renounce Christ. This may also intimate that such as indulge themselves in gluttony or drunkenness, and by so doing make their own table the table of devils, or keep up fellowship with Satan by a course of known and wilful wickedness, cannot partake truly of the cup and table of the Lord. They may use the sign, but do not the thing signified thereby. For a man can never be at once in communication with Christ and his church and yet in fellowship with Satan. Note, How much reason have we to look to it that every sin and idol be renounced by us, when we eat and drink at the Lord's table.

V. He warns them, upon the whole, against such idolatry, by signifying to them that God is a jealous God (1Co 10:22): Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? It is very probable that many among the Corinthians made light of being at these heathen feasts, and thought there was no harm in it. But the apostle bids them beware. The reason with which the second commandment is enforced is, I am a jealous God. God cannot endure a rival in matter of worship; nor give his glory, nor suffer it to be given, to another. Those who have fellowship with other gods provoke him to jealousy, Deu 32:16. And, before this be done, persons should consider whether they are stronger than he. It is a dangerous thing to provoke God's anger, unless we could withstand his power. But who can stand before him when he is angry? Nah 1:6. This should be considered by all who continue in the love and liking of sin, and in league with it, while yet they profess to keep up communion with Christ. Is not this the way to provoke his jealousy and indignation? Note, Attention to the greatness of God's power should restrain us from provoking his jealousy, from doing any thing to displease him. Shall we rouse almighty wrath? And how shall we withstand it? Are we a match for God? Can we resist his power, or control it? And, if not, shall we arm it against us, by provoking him to jealousy? No, let us fear his power, and let this restrain us from all provocation.

Matthew Henry: 1Co 10:23-33

In this passage the apostle shows in what instances, notwithstanding, Christians might lawfully eat what had been sacrificed to idols. They must not eat it out of religious respect to the idol, nor go into his temple, and hold a feast there, upon what they knew was an idol-sacrifice; nor perhaps out of the temple, if they knew it was a feast held upon a sacrifice, but there were cases wherein they might without sin eat what had been offered. Some such the apostle here enumerates. - But,

I. He gives a caution against abusing our liberty in lawful things. That may be lawful which is not expedient, which will not edify. A Christian must not barely consider what is lawful, but what is expedient, and for the use of edification. A private Christian should do so even in his private conduct. He must not seek his own only, but his neighbour's wealth. He must be concerned not to hurt his neighbour, nay, he must be concerned to promote his welfare; and must consider how to act so that he may help others, and not hinder them in their holiness, comfort, or salvation. Those who allow themselves in every thing not plainly sinful in itself will often run into what is evil by accident, and do much mischief to others. Every thing lawful in itself to be done is not therefore lawfully done. Circumstances may make that a sin which in itself is none. These must be weighed, and the expediency of an action, and its tendency to edification, must be considered before it be done. Note, The welfare of others, as well as our own convenience, must be consulted in many things we do, if we would do them well.

II. He tells them that what was sold in the shambles they might eat without asking questions. The priest's share of heathen sacrifices was thus frequently offered for sale, after it had been offered in the temple. Now the apostle tells them they need not be so scrupulous as to ask the butcher in the market whether the meat he sold had been offered to an idol? It was there sold as common food, and as such might be bought and used; for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof (1Co 10:26), and the fruit and products of the earth were designed by him, the great proprietor, for the use and subsistence of mankind, and more especially of his own children and servants. Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, 1Ti 4:4, 1Ti 4:5. To the pure all things are pure, Tit 1:15. Note, Though it is sinful to use any food in an idolatrous manner, it is no sin, after such abuse, to apply it, in a holy manner, to its common use.

III. He adds that if they were invited by any heathen acquaintances to a feast, they might go, and eat what was set before them, without asking questions (1Co 10:27), nay, though they knew things sacrificed to idols were served up at such entertainments, as well as sold in the shambles. Note, The apostle does not prohibit their going to a feast upon the invitation of those that believed not. There is a civility owing even to infidels and heathens. Christianity does by no means bind us up from the common offices of humanity, nor allow us an uncourteous behaviour to any of our own kind, however they may differ from us in religious sentiments or practices. And when Christians were invited to feast with infidels they were not to ask needless questions about the food set before them, but eat without scruple. Needless enquiries might perplex their minds and consciences, for which reason they were to be avoided. Any thing fit to be eaten, that was set before them at a common entertainment, they might lawfully eat. And why then should they scrupulously enquire whether what was set before them had been sacrificed? It is to be understood of civil feasting, not religious; for the latter among the heathens was feasting upon their sacrifices, which he had condemned before as a participation in their idolatrous worship. At a common feast they might expect common food; and they needed not to move scruples in their own minds whether what was set before them was otherwise or no. Note, Though Christians should be very careful to know and understand their duty, yet they should not, by needless enquiries, perplex themselves.

IV. Yet, even at such an entertainment, he adds, if any should say it was a thing that had been offered to idols, they should refrain: Eat not, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience' sake. Whether it were the master of the feast or any of the guests, whether it were spoken in the hearing of all or whispered in the ear, they should refrain for his sake who suggested this to them, whether he were an infidel or an infirm Christian; and for conscience' sake, out of regard to conscience, that they might show a regard to it in themselves, and keep up a regard to it in others. This he backs with the same reason as the former: For the earth is the Lord's. There is food enough provided by our common Lord, of which we maya eat without scruple. The same doctrine may be variously improved, as here: "The earth is the Lord's, therefore you may eat any thing without scruple that is set before you as common food; and yet, because the earth is the Lord's, eat nothing that will give offence, lay a stumbling-block before others, and encourage some in idolatry, or tempt others to eat when they are not clear in their own mind that it is lawful, and so sin, and wound their own consciences."Note, Christians should be very cautious of doing what may thus prejudice the consciences of others, and weaken their authority with them, which is by all means to be kept up.

V. He urges them to refrain where they will give offence, while yet he allows it lawful to eat what was et before them as common food, though it had been offered in sacrifice. "Another man's conscience is no measure to our conduct. What he thinks unlawful is not thereby made unlawful to me, but may be a matter of liberty still; and as long as I own God as a giver of my food, and render him thanks for it, it is very unjust to reproach me for using it."This must be understood abstracted from the scandal given by eating in the circumstance mentioned. Though some understand it to mean, "Why should I, by using the liberty I have, give occasion to those who are scandalized to speak evil of me?"According to that advice of the apostle (Rom 14:16), Let not your good be evil spoken of. Note, Christians should take care not to use their liberty to the hurt of others, nor their own reproach.

VI. The apostle takes occasion from this discourse to lay down a rule for Christians' conduct, and apply it to this particular case (1Co 10:31, 1Co 10:32), namely, that in eating and drinking, and in all we do, we should aim at the glory of God, at pleasing and honouring him. This is the fundamental principle of practical godliness. The great end of all practical religion must direct us where particular and express rules are wanting. Nothing must be done against the glory of God, and the good of our neighbours, connected with it. Nay, the tendency of our behaviour to the common good, and the credit of our holy religion, should give direction to it. And therefore nothing should be done by us to offend any, whether Jew, or Gentile, or the church, 1Co 10:32. The Jews should not be unnecessarily grieved nor prejudiced, who have such an abhorrence of idols that they reckon every thing offered to them thereby defiled, and that it will pollute and render culpable all who partake of it; nor should heathens be countenanced in their idolatry by any behaviour of ours, which they may construe as homage or honour done to their idols; nor young converts from Gentilism take any encouragement from our conduct to retain any veneration for the heathen gods and worship, which they have renounced: nor should we do any thing that may be a means to pervert any members of the church from their Christian profession or practice. Our own humour and appetite must not determine our practice, but the honour of God and the good and edification of the church. We should not so much consult our own pleasure and interest as the advancement of the kingdom of God among men. Note, A Christian should be a man devoted to God, and of a public spirit.

VII. He presses all upon them by his own example: Even as I please all men (or study to do it) in all things (that I lawfully can), not seeking my own profit, but that of many, that they may be saved, 1Co 10:33. Note, A preacher may press his advice home with boldness and authority when he can enforce it with his own example. He is most likely to promote a public spirit in others who can give evidence of it in himself. And it is highly commendable in a minister to neglect his own advantage that he may promote the salvation of his hearers. This shows that he has a spirit suitable to his function. It is a station for public usefulness, and can never be faithfully discharged by a man of a narrow spirit and selfish principles.

Barclay: 1Co 10:14-22

Behind this passage there are three ideas; two of them are peculiar to the age in which Paul lived; one is forever true and valid.

(i) As we have seen, when sacrifice was offered, part of the meat was given back to the worshipper to hold a feast. At such a feast it was always held that the god himself was a guest. More, it was often held that, after the meat had been sacrificed, the god himself was in it and that at the banquet he entered into the very bodies and spirits of those who ate. Just as an unbreakable bond was forged between two men if they ate each other's bread and salt, so a sacrificial meal formed a real communion between the god and his worshipper. The person who sacrificed was in a real sense a sharer with the altar; he had a mystic communion with the god.

(ii) At this time the whole world believed in demons. These demons might be good or bad, but more often they were bad. They were spirits who were intermediate between the gods and men. For the Greek every spring, every grove, every mountain, every tree, every stream, every pool, every rock, every place had its demon. "There were gods in every fountain and every mountain summit; gods breathing in the wind and flashing in the lightning; gods in the ray of the sun and the star; gods heaving in the earthquake and the storm." The world was packed with demons. For the Jew there were the shedim (07700). These were evil spirits who haunted empty houses, who lurked "in the crumbs on the floor, in the oil in the vessels, in the water which we would drink, in the diseases which attack us, in the air, in the room, by day and by night."

Paul believed in these demons; he called them "principalities and powers." His point of view was this--an idol was nothing and stood for nothing; but the whole business of idol worship was the work of the demons; through it they seduced men from God. When they were worshipping idols, men thought they were worshipping gods; in fact they were being deluded by these malignant demons. Idol worship brought a man into contact, not with God, but with demons; and anything to do with it had the demonic taint on it. Meat offered to idols was nothing, but the fact remained it had served the purposes of demons and was therefore a polluted thing.

(iii) Out of this ancient set of beliefs comes one permanent principle--a man who has sat at the table of Jesus Christ cannot go on to sit at the table which is the instrument of demons. If a man has handled the body and blood of Christ there are things he cannot touch.

One of the great statues of Christ is that by Thorwaldsen; after he had carved it, he was offered a commission to carve a statue of Venus for the Louvre. His answer, was "The hand that carved the form of Christ can never carve the form of a heathen goddess."

When Prince Charlie was fleeing for his life he found refuge with the eight men of Glenmoriston. They were outlaws and criminals every one; there was a price of 30,000 British pounds on Charlie's head; they had not a shilling among them; but for weeks they hid him and kept him safe and not a man betrayed him. The years passed on until the rebellion was but an old, unhappy memory. One of the eight men, Hugh Chisholm by name, found his way to Edinburgh. People were interested now in his story of the prince and they talked to him. He was poor and sometimes they would give him money. But always Hugh Chisholm would shake hands with his left hand. He said that when Prince Charlie left the eight men he shook hands with them; and Hugh had sworn that he would never again give to any man the hand he had given to his prince.

It was true in Corinth and it is true today, that the man who has handled the sacred things of Christ cannot soil his hands with mean and unworthy things.

Barclay: 1Co 10:23-33

Paul brings to an end this long discussion of the question of meat offered to idols with some very practical advice.

(i) His advice is that a Christian can buy anything that is sold in the shops and ask no questions. It was true that the meat sold in the shops might well have formed part of a sacrifice or have been slaughtered in the name of some god lest the demons enter into it; but it is possible to be too fussy and to create difficulties where none need exist. After all, in the last analysis, all things are God's.

(ii) If the Christian accepts an invitation to dinner in the house of a pagan, let him eat what is put before him and ask no questions. But, if he is deliberately informed that the meat is part of a sacrifice, he must not eat it. The assumption is that he is told by one of these brothers who cannot rid his conscience of the feeling that to eat such meat is wrong. Rather than bring worry to such a man the Christian must not eat.

(iii) So once again out of an old and remote situation emerges a great truth. Many a thing that a man may do with perfect safety as far as he himself is concerned, he must not do if it is going to be a stumbling-block to someone else. There is nothing more real than Christian freedom; but Christian freedom must be used to help others and not to shock or hurt them. A man has a duty to himself but a still greater duty to others.

We must note to where that duty extends.

(i) Paul insisted that a Corinthian Christian must be a good example to the Jews. Even to his enemies a man must be an example of the fine things.

(ii) The Corinthian Christian had a duty to the Greeks; that is to say he had to show a good example to those who were quite indifferent to Christianity. It is in fact by that example that many are won. There was a minister who went far out of his way to help a man who had nothing to do with the Church and rescued him from a difficult situation. That man began to come to Church and in the end made an astonishing request. He asked to be made an elder that he might spend his life showing his gratitude for what Christ through his servant had done for him.

(iii) The Corinthian Christian had a duty to his fellow Church member. It is the plain fact of life that somebody takes the cue for his conduct from everyone of us. We may not know it; but a younger or a weaker brother is often looking to us for a lead. It is our duty to give that lead which will strengthen the weak and confirm the waverer and save the tempted from sin.

We can do all things to the glory of God only when we remember the duty we must discharge to our fellow men; and we will do that only when we remember that our Christian freedom is given to us not for our own sake but for the sake of others.

1Cor 11-14 are amongst the most difficult in the whole epistle for a modem person in the western world to understand; but they are also among the most interesting, for they deal with the problems which had arisen in the Corinthian Church in connection with public worship. In them we see the infant Church struggling with the problem of offering a fitting and a seemly worship to God. It will make the section easier to follow if we set out at the beginning the various parts of which it is composed.

(i) 1Co 11:2-16deals with the problem of whether or not women should worship with their heads uncovered.

(ii) 1Co 11:17-23deals with problems which have arisen in connection with the Agape (26) or Love Feast, the weekly common meal which the Christian congregation held.

(iii) 1Co 11:24-34deals with the correct observance of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

(iv) 1Cor 12 discusses the problem of welding into one harmonious whole those who possess all kinds of different gifts. It is here that we have the great picture of the Church as the Body of Christ, and of each member as a limb in that body.

(v) 1Cor 13 is the great hymn of love which shows men the more excellent way.

(vi) 1Co 14:1-23deals with the problem of speaking with tongues.

(vii) 1Co 14:24-33insists on the necessity of orderliness in public worship and seeks to bring under necessary discipline the overflowing enthusiasm of a newly born Church.

(viii) 1Co 14:24-36discusses the place of women in the public worship of God in the Church of Corinth.

Constable: 1Co 7:1--16:13

III. Questions asked of Paul 7:1--16:12

The remainder of the body of this epistle deals with questions the Corinthians had put to Paul in a letter. Paul introduced each of these with the phrase peri de ("now concerning," 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12).

"Rather than a friendly exchange, in which the new believers in Corinth are asking spiritual advice of their mentor in the Lord, their letter was probably a response to Paul's Previous Letter mentioned in 5:9, in which they were taking exception to his position on point after point. In light of their own theology of spirit, with heavy emphasis on wisdom' and knowledge,' they have answered Paul with a kind of Why can't we?' attitude, in which they are looking for his response."¹⁶⁰

Constable: 1Co 8:1--11:2

B. Food offered to idols 8:1-11:1

The Corinthians had asked Paul another question, evidently in a combative spirit judging by the apostle's response. It involved a practice common in their culture.

The commentators understand the situation that Paul addressed in two different ways. Some of them believe that the eating of marketplace food that pagans had previously offered to idols was amoral in itself, but it was controversial enough to cause division among the church members. If this was indeed the issue that Paul addressed, it is only one of many similar "doubtful things." Advocates of this view believe that the apostle's directions to his readers here give us guidance in dealing with contemporary doubtful (amoral) matters.

Other interpreters believe that eating food sacrificed to idols involved a specific form of idolatry and was, therefore, not amoral but sinful (cf. 5:10-11). They assume that Paul was responding to the Corinthians' objection to his prohibition of this practice that he had written in his former letter to them. This view sees 8:10 and 10:1-22 as expressing the basic problem to which Paul was responding. I believe the text supports this interpretation of the facts better than the former one.

"That going to the temples is the real issue is supported by the fact that the eating of cultic meals was a regular part of worship in antiquity. This is true not only of the nations that surrounded Israel, but of Israel itself. In the Corinth of Paul's time, such meals were still the regular practice both at state festivals and private celebrations of various kinds. There were three parts to these meals: the preparation, the sacrifice proper, and the feast. The meat of the sacrifices apparently was divided into three portions: that burned before the god, that apportioned to the worshipers, and that placed on the table of the god,' which was tended by cultic ministrants but also eaten by the worshipers. The significance of these meals has been much debated, but most likely they involved a combination of religious and social factors. The gods were thought to be present since the meals were held in their honor and sacrifices were made; nonetheless, they were also intensely social occasions for the participants. For the most part the Gentiles who had become believers in Corinth had probably attended such meals all their lives; this was the basic restaurant' in antiquity, and every kind of occasion was celebrated in this fashion.

"The problem, then, is best reconstructed along the following lines. After their conversion--and most likely after the departure of Paul--some of them returned to the practice of attending the cultic meals. In his earlier letter Paul forbade such idolatry'; but they have taken exception to that prohibition and in their letter have made four points:

"(1) They argue that all have knowledge' about idols [i.e., that there are no such things, so participation in these meals is not an issue, cf. vv. 1, 4]. . . .

"(2) They also have knowledge about food, that it is a matter of indifference to God (8:8) . . .

"(3) They seem to have a somewhat magical' view of the sacraments; those who have had Christian baptism and who partake of the Lord's Table are not in any danger of falling (10:1-4).

"(4) Besides, there is considerable question in the minds of many whether Paul has the proper apostolic authority to forbid them on this matter. In their minds this has been substantiated by two factors: first, his failure to accept support while with them; and second, his own apparently compromising stance on idol food sold in the marketplace (he abstained when eating with Jews, but ate when eating with Gentiles; cf. 9:19-23)."¹⁹⁷

Constable: 1Co 10:1-22

3. The sinfulness of idolatry 10:1-22

Paul continued dealing with the subject of going to idol temples to participate in pagan feasts in this section. In it he gave a warning to the believer who considered himself strong, the one who knew there were really no gods but the true God. Such a person felt free to accept the invitation of a pagan neighbor to dine in a pagan temple (8:10). The apostle cautioned this element in the Corinthian church because, even though there are no other gods, the possibility of participating in idolatry is very real. He drew his lesson from the experience of Israel during the wilderness wanderings (cf. Exod. 13-17; Num. 10-15).

Constable: 1Co 10:14-22

The incompatibility of Christianity and idolatry 10:14-22

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

10:14 Formerly Paul urged the Corinthians to flee fornication (6:18; cf. v. 8). Now he concluded all he said in verses 1-13 with the charge to flee idolatry, the worship of idols. He softened his strong command with an affectionate address ("my beloved"). Amoral activities are alright for the Christian, but if they involve or lead to idolatry we should avoid them.

10:15 This statement prepares for what follows. The apostle was confident that the Corinthians had the wisdom to understand the correctness of what he was about to tell them. He believed they could make correct judgments about what they should do. Still, to follow his logic they would need to use their minds. As we have seen, the Corinthians considered themselves very wise. They should judge for themselves that Paul was right.

10:16 The apostle employed rhetorical questions again to make his point. He was setting the Corinthians up for what he would say in verses 19-21.

Most New Testament references to the bread and the cup in the Lord's Supper occur in that order. Here Paul reversed the normal order. He probably turned them around because he wanted to give more attention to the bread in the verses that follow. The cup may focus on the vertical dimension of fellowship between the believer and the Lord whereas the bread focuses on the horizontal dimension (cf. v. 17).²²³ The pagan feasts also emphasized both dimensions of fellowship, with the god and with the fellow-worshippers.

The "cup of blessing" was a technical term for the third of four cups of wine that the Jews drank in the Passover celebration. At the Last Supper the drinking of this cup preceded the giving of thanks for the bread (cf. Luke 22:17-20). However the Lord's Supper only involved eating bread and drinking one cup (cf. 11:23-29).

Paul described the cup as a cup of blessing, a common Jewish expression for the last cup of wine drunk at many meals. The Jews used it as a kind of toast to God for His goodness.²²⁴ However, Paul turned this around by saying we bless the cup. That is, we give thanks to God for the cup because of what it symbolizes, namely our sharing in the benefits of Christ's shed blood (cf. 11:25).

Likewise the bread used at the Christian feast, the Lord's Supper, is a symbol of our participation in the effects of Christ's slain body (cf. 11:24). The Greek word here translated "sharing" (NASB) or "participation" (NIV; koinonia) in other places reads "fellowship" or "communion." This is why another name for the Lord's Supper is the communion service.

10:17 When Christians take communion we all eat from one bread symbolic of the physical body of Christ. In the early church believers seem to have used one loaf, the literal meaning of the word translated "bread" in this verse (artos). Paul stressed that many people eating from one loaf symbolized the solidarity of our relationship as a redeemed community in Christ. (He developed the idea of the unity of the body more fully in 12:14-27 in his explanation of the diversity that exists within the unity of the spiritual body of Christ, the church.) The emphasis here is on the solidarity of believers that forbids all other unions.

10:18 We can see the partnership of those who partake of sacrifices with everything the altar stands for in Judaism (cf. Deut. 14:22-27). Paul referred to Israel literally as "Israel according to the flesh." He contrasted all the physical Israelites with those who are Jewish Christians (cf. Phil. 3:3). This description lends no support to the idea that the church replaces Israel in the program of God. "Israel" always refers to Jewish people in the New Testament.

Paul's line of reasoning was proceeding as follows. Christians who eat the bread at the Lord's Supper thereby express their solidarity with one another and with Christ. Likewise Jews who ate the meat of animals offered in the sacrifices of Judaism expressed their solidarity with one another and with God. Therefore Christians who eat the meat offered to pagan gods as part of pagan worship express their solidarity with pagans and with the pagan deities.

"As in the Holy Communion, therefore, so also in the Temple services, participating in sacrificial feasts is sacrificial fellowship with an unseen power, a power that is Divine. There is something analogous to this in the sacrificial feasts of the heathen; but in that case the unseen power is not Divine."²²⁵

The "wise" man in Corinth (v. 15) could have replied to Paul's conclusion as follows. Yes, but you agreed before that idols have no real existence and there is only one true God.

10:19 Paul proceeded to clarify what he meant. He was not saying that sacrifices to idols or idols themselves were anything. That is, sacrifices to idols were not in themselves sinful nor were idols genuine entities. On this point he and the Corinthians agreed. Idols were only pieces of wood or stone, not gods with supernatural powers. Nevertheless these idols represented supernatural powers (v. 20), and so eating cultic meals had genuine significance.

10:20 The power behind pagan religion is demonic (cf. Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37). Consequently people who sacrifice to idols express solidarity with demonic powers. Eating the food sacrificed to idols means that the people who participated shared in what had been sacrificed to demons just as the Israelites shared in what had been sacrificed to God. The cultic feasts were really sacrifices to demons, so they involved the worship of demons.

10:21 It is inconsistent for a Christian to partake in the Lord's Supper and to take part in pagan religious feasts. In the former he eats and drinks in union with Christ, and in the latter he is in union with demons who direct the devotees to worship idols. What the Lord promotes and what the demons promote are opposite. This inconsistency must be obvious to "wise men" (v. 15). Christians have a unique relationship with the Lord and with fellow-believers, which the Lord's Supper symbolizes. It is, therefore, inappropriate for us to have a similar association with demons and unbelievers (vv. 20-21), which participation in cultic events involves.

10:22 The Israelites provoked the Lord to jealousy by doing just such a thing when they joined in Moabite worship (Num. 25; cf. Deut. 32:17, 21-22). We are to learn from their experiences. It would be folly to provoke the Lord unless we are stronger than He. If we provoke Him and are not, we can count on His chastening since He is a jealous God.

The Corinthians were arguing for the right to attend pagan religious meals. They even viewed attendance as a way of building their "weaker" brethren. Paul responded that attendance was wrong on two counts: it was unloving, and it was incompatible with life in Christ, which their participation in the Lord's Table symbolized. He forbade any relationship with the demonic. The demonic is not as remote as some modern Western Christians would like to believe.

Constable: 1Co 10:23--11:2

4. The issue of marketplace food 10:23-11:1

As with the issue of marriage, however, Paul granted that there are some matters connected with idolatry that are not wrong. He next gave his readers some help in making the tough choices needed in view of the amoral nature of some practices connected with pagan worship and the immoral nature of others. He suggested applying the test of what is edifying to these decisions. He proceeded to explain that food formerly offered to idols but sold in the marketplace was all right for Christians to eat at home. He himself had eaten such food (9:19-23), and the Corinthians had challenged him for doing so (10:29).

"But the real issues seem to lie deeper than the mere question of eating food. Both the nature of their argument for eating at the temples (8:1, 4, 8) and their criticism of Paul (9:1-3, 19-23) have revealed a basic confusion between absolutes and adiaphora (nonessentials). They had tried to make temple attendance an adiaphoron; for Paul it was an absolute because it was idolatry. At the same time they had confused the true basis for Christian behavior. For them it was a question of knowledge and rights (gnosis and exousia). For Paul it is a question of love and freedom (agape and eleutheria).²²⁶

This section's chiastic structure reflects Paul's alternating concern for personal freedom and love for others.

A The criterion stated: the good of others (10:23-24)

B Personal freedom explained (10:25-27)

C The criterion illustrated: love governing liberty (10:28-29a)

B' Personal freedom defended (10:29b-30)

A' The criterion generalized: that all may be saved (10:33-11:1)

10:23 Earlier Paul had addressed the issue of Christian liberty and had said that all things were lawful for him, but all things were not beneficial (6:12). Now he went further and clarified that beneficial means beneficial for others, not just self. Thus he sought to bring the rights-conscious Corinthians to their knees.

10:24 The well-being of one's neighbor is of primary importance. The exercise of all one's liberties is of secondary importance (cf. Rom. 15:2; Phil. 2:4). The Corinthians viewed their freedom as an opportunity to pursue their own interests. Paul viewed it as an opportunity to benefit and build up another person.

10:25-26 It was not wrong to eat meat that pagans had offered in sacrifice to an idol. Any food for which one thanks God thereby becomes acceptable for human consumption assuming it is wholesome (v. 30; cf. 1 Tim. 4:3-5). This was a very un-Jewish viewpoint coming from a Jew. As earlier in this epistle and elsewhere in his writings, Paul appealed to Scripture for a supporting summary statement (Ps. 24:1; 50:12).

Remember Paul was talking about distinctions based on spiritual issues. In Christianity there is no distinction between kosher and non-kosher food (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15). Paul was not talking about distinctions in food based on physical factors such as fat content, calories, and nutritional value. The issue was whether certain foods commend us to or condemn us before God. They do not.

10:27 The invitation in view must be to the home of an unbeliever for a meal rather than to a pagan temple for participation in a religious feast. This seems clear from the next verse. This freedom may have been hard for many Jewish Christians to accept (cf. Acts 10:28; 11:2-3). Nevertheless it belonged to them. It was wise not to ask if someone had offered the meat to an idol. A Christian might pose this question in the home of a pagan host or in the marketplace (v. 25). Not inquiring would obviate the possibility of unnecessary guilt arising in the mind of a scrupulous believer.

10:28-29a A pagan host might warn his Christian guest that the food before him had been offered in an idol temple.²²⁷ The pagan's conscience is not a reference to his convictions about what is right and wrong for himself but his moral consciousness.²²⁸ He does not want his Christian guest to be unaware that he is being served food that the Christian might object to and might what to abstain from eating.²²⁹ Pagans often associated Christians with Jews at this stage of church history, and many pagans would have assumed that Christians observed the same dietary restrictions as the Jews.

We might think that in such a situation Paul would have advocated exercising Christian liberty to eat the meat, but he did not. He advocated abstaining, not because such meat was out of bounds for believers. It was not out of bounds; Christians could eat such meat. He advocated abstaining for the sake of the pagan's moral consciousness. Specifically, if the Christian ate the meat, the pagan might conclude that his guest was doing something Christians should not do. He would be wrong, of course. Yet Paul advocated not violating the pagan's understanding of what Christians should or should not do rather than instructing him about Christian freedom at the table.

"A present-day analogy may be imagined if someone with strong principles on total abstention from alcohol were the guest of friends who did not share these principles. He would be well advised not to enquire too carefully about the ingredients of some specially palatable sauce or trifle, but if someone said to him pointedly, There is alcohol in this, you know', he might feel that he was being put on the spot and could reasonably ask to be excused from having any of it."²³⁰

10:29b This question resumes the thought of verses 26 and 27. Verses 28-29a are somewhat parenthetical being an illustration. We could restate Paul's thought this way. Why should another person's scruples determine my liberty? The answer is, they should because his spiritual welfare is more important than our Christian freedom.

10:30 Paul brought his own conduct in similar situations into the picture. He had eaten non-kosher food with Gentiles, but in the argument preceding this verse he advocated abstaining from such food when eating with pagans. The key, of course, is that sacrificial meat was only off limits for Paul when it offended the moral consciousness of the pagans he was with, not all the time.

"The blessing offered at one's meal, predicated on God's prior ownership of all things, means that no fellow Christian may condemn another on this question."²³¹

The Christian can give thanks to God for whatever he or she eats, but we should limit our own liberty out of consideration for what other people think is proper. We do not need to alter our convictions for the sake of others even though they speak evil of us, as the Corinthians did of Paul (cf. 9:19-23). Nevertheless we should be willing to change our behavior for the sake of unbelievers.

10:31 What glorifies God? Consideration for the consciences of other people and promotion of their well-being does. This contrasts with the observance of distinctions between foods, the satisfaction of one's personal preferences, and insistence on one's own rights. What glorifies God is what puts His preferences, plans, and program first (cf. Col. 3:17).

". . . God's own glory is the ultimate foundation of Pauline ethics (10:31)."²³²

10:32 Giving no offense means putting no obstacle in the path of a person be he Jew (cf. 9:20) or Gentile (cf. 9:21) so that he might come to faith in Christ. If he is already a believer, it means putting nothing in his way that would hinder his growth in Christ (cf. 9:22). It is not a matter of simply "hurting someone's feelings."

Paul regarded these three groups as equal in this verse. Therefore he was probably thinking of three religious groups rather than two racial groups and one religious group. If so, he distinguished between Israel and the church in this verse. This distinction is basic to dispensationalism.

10:33 If we took the first part of this verse out of context, we might conclude that Paul was a "man pleaser" (cf. Gal. 1:10). Obviously he meant he did not allow any of his own attitudes or activities in amoral areas to create barriers between himself and those he sought to help spiritually.

He tried to practice what he preached about putting the welfare of others first (cf. v. 24). "Saved" in this context probably includes Christians and means saved in the wide sense of delivered from anything that keeps someone from advancing spiritually (cf. Rom. 15:1-3).

"Christian freedom is not given to us for our own sake but for the sake of others."²³³

11:1 Paul recommended that his readers follow his example of exercising and limiting their Christian liberty, glorifying God, and giving no offense, as well as in other areas of their lives (cf. 4:16).

All of chapters 8, 9, and 10, including 11:1, deal with the subject of the Christian's relationship to food sacrificed to idols. In summary, Paul forbad going to pagan temples for cultic meals. However, he permitted the eating of marketplace meat under normal circumstances. If something is not sinful it is permissible for the believer, but even so it may be wise to avoid it for the sake of the spiritual welfare of others. The Christian should be willing to limit his or her exercise of his or her Christian liberty because of love for others.

College: 1Co 10:1-33

1 CORINTHIANS 10

C. WARNINGS FROM ISRAEL'S HISTORY (10:1-13)

1. Wandering in the Desert (10:1-5)

¹ For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. ² They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. ³ They all ate the same spiritual food ⁴ and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. ⁵ Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.

10:1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.

In light of the fact that 9:27 ended on the note of possible disqualification in receiving the imperishable crown, one would do well to note the connection between this theme and the point Paul makes in 10:1ff. In fact, this connection is secured with Paul's use of the word "for" (gavr, gar ) in 10:1. The apostle is moving from the common athletic illustrations and metaphors of everyday life to the authority of Scripture to demonstrate and anchor the truth of his point. The strategy we recognize at this juncture in 9:24-10:1 is one of moving from human illustrations to scriptural attestation, which we also observed in Paul's argument in 9:7-10.

It is important for the interpreter to keep in mind that Paul is still within the larger three-chapter section dealing with issues related to the consumption of food offered to idols. This point will be made explicit by him in the following verses when he actually begins to use the terms idols and idolaters.

The apostle is clearly concerned in 10:1 about the ignorance of these Corinthian brothers. (On theme of ignorance, cf. 12:1). If one knows Paul's own theology and writings it comes as no surprise that he would regard Gentile believers at Corinth as spiritual kinfolk of the Old Testament Israelites. This is certainly what Paul has in mind when he refers to them as "our forefathers who were all under the cloud." Calling ancient Hebrews of the second millennium B.C. the forefathers of believers in the church at Roman Corinth, is cut from the same cloth as when Paul instructed them regarding their participation in the spiritual Passover and feast of the unleavened bread (1 Cor 5:6-8). The reference to cloud and sea points to the Exodus narrative found in the Pentateuch.

10:2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

Beginning in this verse Paul employs a hermeneutical method in interpreting the Old Testament which has often been called typology. One reason this terminology is applied to this illustration is because of the apostle's use of the word tuvpoi ( typoi ) (10:6), which is translated in the NIV as "examples." With this method of interpretation it is clear that Paul is working with the specific realities of the Corinthians' spiritual situation and going backward into the Mosaic materials to find points of correlation. This is what the apostle is doing when he writes that all of the forefathers were baptized into Moses (from baptivzw, baptizô) in the cloud and in the sea. The reference to baptism here can only be intelligible and meaningful if we understand it typologically. That is, Paul wants to observe and comment on a point of correspondence between the spiritual realities in the church at Corinth and the spiritual realities at the time of Moses. Paul probably chose the verb "baptized" because of possible misunderstandings about its efficacy in the church at Corinth. While this suggestion has not been accepted by all, some scholars believe that the reference to the cloud and the sea in 10:2 are typological references to the Holy Spirit and the water of baptism.

10:3 They all ate the same spiritual food

Another point of correspondence between the Corinthian believers and their Hebrew spiritual forefathers is that both groups consumed a spiritual (pneumatikov", pneumatikos ) food. Paul clearly has in mind here God's provision of manna to the Israelites (Exod 16:4ff). The typological correspondence with the saints in Corinth would obviously be the bread which they ate at the Lord's Supper (cf. 10:16-17).

10:4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

Next Paul refers to a spiritual drink (pneumatikoÉn povma, pneumatikon poma ) that the Israelites imbibed, a drink which corresponded to the Christian participation in the fruit of the vine (cf. 10:15-16; 11:25-26). Paul next identifies the source of the spiritual drink which the Israelites drank. He continues his typological interpretation with a reference to the spiritual rock that accompanied the Israelites in their wilderness wanderings. Here the apostle refers to the account found in Exod 17:6 and Num 20. The refreshment that came from this rock was remembered centuries later in Israelite hymnody. Ps 78:15-16 reads, "He split the rocks in the desert and gave them water as abundant as the seas; he brought streams out of a rocky crag and made water flow down like rivers." Next the apostle Paul correlates that rock with the presence of Christ, again a point of correlation between the Corinthian experience of Christ and the Israelite experience.

10:5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.

This verse makes explicit what Paul's point in all this typology is. His point is that notwithstanding the central spiritual experiences of baptism, of a spiritual meal, and of the presence of Christ, God's people are not thereby irrevocably protected from the destruction and wrath of God. Witherington's summary of the apostle's point is helpful when he states that Paul,

is not arguing that the Red Sea crossing was a sacrament, since actually the Israelites went across on dry ground and did not get wet. Nor is he suggesting that the manna was in some sense a sacramental food just like the Lord's Supper. His point is the Israelites had the same sort of benefits as Christians do, even benefits from Christ himself, and even this did not secure them against perishing in the desert and losing out on God's final and greatest blessing.

While Paul's confrontational and judgmental message at this juncture does not fit comfortably with all interpreters' views of Paul, it is very clear that his message is in harmony with other ideas expressed in 1 Corinthians. Of course one must not forget that Paul's harsh lesson in 10:1ff is directed against saints at Corinth who are involved in overt idolatry. It should be remembered, furthermore, that in Paul's previous letter to the Corinthians (see notes at 5:9ff ) the apostle advocated withdrawal from fellow Christians who practiced idolatry. In 5:11ff Paul emphatically makes the same point again and states that idolatrous believers are not even to share in the fellowship of a meal with fellow Christians. And finally, in 6:9, Paul clearly states that idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of God. This judgmental illustration based upon the wilderness wandering narratives should not come as a surprise to readers who had been following the tone of Paul's ethical concerns in previous chapters.

2. Punishment for Sins (10:6-10)

⁶ Now these things occurred as examples ^a to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. ⁷ Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry." ^{b 8} We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did - and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. ⁹ We should not test the Lord, as some of them did - and were killed by snakes. ¹⁰ And do not grumble, as some of them did - and were killed by the destroying angel.

^a 6 Or types ; also in verse 11 ^b 7 Exodus 32:6

10:6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.

Paul has used an interpretive principle which allows him to argue about the way that God will treat sinful Christians on the basis of how God treated sinful Israelites. His use of this hermeneutical technique reveals that he would have no sympathy for depicting the "God of the Old Testament" as being radically different from the "God of the New Testament," particularly in the matter of God's destruction of his covenant people when they abandon loyalty to him. The apostle would have no sympathy for a glib presentation which treats the God of the Old Testament as a God of anger and the God of the New Testament as a God of love and forgiveness. Not only do the Old Testament Scriptures teach on several occasions that "God is slow to anger and abounds in steadfast love" (e.g., Exod 34:6; Ps 103:8; Jonah 4:2; cf. Deut 4:31), but New Testament Scriptures make it equally plain that the gospel includes a word about the wrath of God. The purpose of this Old Testament example, Paul explains, is to inhibit the believers at Corinth from being involved in the same kind of evil that those Israelites were.

10:7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry."

By the occurrence of the word "idolaters" in 10:7 Paul explicitly states what his concern is. Even though there are more occurrences of the word "idol" and its cognates in 1 Corinthians than the entirety of Paul's other letters together, scholars are still not in agreement regarding the exact nature of Paul's concern in chapter 10 in comparison to his concern expressed in chapter 8. While chapter 8 seemed to be more concerned about the situation of a weak Christian being seduced into idolatry, chapter 10 seems to be focusing more on overt and explicit acts of idolatry. Given the pervasiveness of idolatry in Greco-Roman antiquity, the fact that the church in Corinth was a first-generation church, and the fact that there would be tremendous social pressure to participate in acts of idolatry, one is not surprised to learn that some of these saints have succumbed to this significant temptation.

To remind his readers of the details of the immorality practiced by the idolatrous Israelites, the apostle Paul quotes from Exod 32:6. In light of Paul's comments in 10:14-22 and everyone's awareness in antiquity that idolatrous meals included eating and drinking, it is not surprising that Paul would cite a verse which referred to the sinful Israelites sitting down to eat and drink in their own idolatrous rebellion. Since pagan temples and pagan feasts were sometimes associated with debauchery and immorality in the Greco-Roman period, the apostle is trying to warn the Corinthian believers to avoid indulgence in pagan revelry by his citation of Exod 32:6.

10:8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did - and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died.

That Paul would refer to the problem of sexual immorality in the same breath that he would mention idolatry comes as no surprise. Rom 1 and Jewish texts from the ancient world make it clear the Jews viewed idolatry and sexual immorality as different sides of the same coin. In chapter 10:8 the apostle is referring to a story found in Num 25 in order to underscore the fact that God will destroy his covenant people who participate in sexual debauchery and immorality. It is clear that Paul points to a scene in which Israelite men "began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate and bowed down before these gods. So Israel joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor. And the LORD's anger burned against them" (Num 25:1-3). Once again the apostle has used a typological correspondence between the contemporary sins and problems of the Corinthians and those of their forefathers in the Old Testament.

10:9 We should not test the Lord, as some of them did - and were killed by snakes.

Having dealt with idolatry in v. 7 and sexual immorality in v. 8, Paul now turns in this verse to the theme of testing the Lord. Because Paul mentions here the role of snakes in God's punishment of the Israelites, we are able to relate this story to the Old Testament episode mentioned in Num 21:4-9. Paul may be drawing upon this particular Old Testament vignette because in this place the Israelites are complaining about the rules God had set in place which controlled their menu. Since Paul has already shown some interest in 10:6 in the concept of eating and drinking, it should come as no surprise to find the Israelites in Num 21:5 saying against God "we detest this miserable food."

10:10 And do not grumble, as some of them did - and were killed by the destroying angel.

A straightforward reading of Num 21:4ff indicates that one of the problems with the Israelite attitude was their grumbling against God. This leads then to the theme of grumbling in 1 Cor 10:10 and the serious consequences of this in the life of the people of God. Usually two Pentateuchal texts are suggested as the probable background to the grumbling motif Paul alludes to here. Typically interpreters refer to Num 14 and 16, the former a story of the general rebellion against Moses' leadership and the latter the better known story of the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Paul's point is not only that the Corinthians should not grumble against the will of God, but in all probability also that they should not murmur against Paul himself and the instructions he has given them.

3. Examples for Us (10:11-13)

¹¹ These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. ¹² So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall! ¹³ No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

10:11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.

Paul mentions again that these punitive actions taken by God were to serve as examples for Christian believers. In fact, Paul continues, these were recorded in Scripture to provide warnings for Corinthian saints. While Scripture clearly has a manifold purpose for the people of God, one of those purposes is to contain warnings so that God's people do not continue to make the same mistakes that their spiritual ancestors made at an earlier time (2 Tim 3:16-17). The term "warnings" (nouqesiva, nouthesia and cognates) was a favorite of Paul's. In fact Paul saw warning as a very important part of his apostolic ministry and the ministry that believers had with one another. (See use of this Greek term in Rom 15:14; 1 Cor 4:14; Col 1:28; 3:16; 1 Thess 5:12, 14; 2 Thess 3:15; and Titus 3:10). Paul ends this verse with a very important reference of eschatological significance to his readership. The apostle's phrase "ends of the ages" (translated by the NIV as "the fulfillment of the ages") clearly reflects his eschatological perspective. When Paul uses the term "ages" he is reflecting the Jewish apocalyptic notion of this age and of the coming age (cf. Eph 1:21; 2:7). The apostle has already used the phrase "this age" in 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18 in a pejorative sense. Because of Christ's resurrection and current reign at the right hand of God, Paul affirms that Christians live in the final period of human history, a period whose boundaries are set by the resurrection and ascension of Christ at one end and by Christ's second coming at the other end. Since all of God's prior dealings with mankind, both through his general revelation as well as his revelation through his elect people, pointed toward the age characterized by the reign of Christ, Paul affirms all prior Scriptures have as their ultimate goal instruction and teaching for those who live in the era of the Messiah. This is why Paul so naturally embraces the concept that everything which occurred in past generations and everything recorded in sacred Scripture is meaningful for God's people who live in the last days of God's dispensation.

10:12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!

Because of the surrounding contextual injunctions against idolatry as well as Paul's threats to the Corinthians about possible destruction by God, there is little doubt what Paul intends to communicate here. This verse is written to persuade idolatrous Corinthian believers that they can have too much confidence about their security with God. Within the rhetorical context of 1 Cor 10 Paul's reference to standing firm refers to a misplaced confidence that certain believers have that they can continue to participate in immorality and idolatry and never be punished by God.

Even though these saints at Corinth had been baptized, had partaken of the Lord's Supper and had a relationship with Christ, none of these insulated them from the need to be told "be careful that you don't fall." John Calvin's interpretation which says that Paul does not want them to "be afraid that there is doubt about their salvation" can only be maintained by removing this verse from its clear exegetical setting which is characterized by threats of destruction from God because of idolatry, immorality, the testing of God, and open rebellion.

The Christian's assurance of blamelessness based upon the work of God in Christ (1:7-9) was not meant to negate or undermine the teaching found in ch. 10. In fact, as Paul will point out in v. 13, his acknowledgment of the possibility of destruction from God is not predicated on the issue of the faithfulness of God.

10:13 No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

In light of the possibility of falling and being destroyed by God, Paul wants to remind the Corinthians that they cannot justifiably excuse themselves from bearing responsibility in their own sinful behavior. In the Greco-Roman world temptations of immorality, idolatry, etc. were commonplace. This means that the Corinthians cannot excuse themselves on the basis of special pleading regarding their unique circumstances in their temptations.

Next the apostle affirms the faithfulness of God, though it is not a faithfulness which will preclude the possibility of the Corinthians sinning and falling. Rather the faithfulness of God is manifested in the fact that he will support them spiritually and prevent them from being overwhelmed by an unbearable temptation. Kistemaker rightly noted in this regard "God's faithfulness to his people is perfect, even though man's faithfulness to him is imperfect. Scripture proves that not God but man is a covenant breaker." Since the faithfulness of God is likewise a doctrinal affirmation of the Old Testament, there is no way that Paul would have assumed the affirmation of the faithfulness of God would excuse God's covenant people from owning moral responsibility.

Nor would the faithfulness of God, as the previous Old Testament illustrations demonstrate, preclude God's severe punishment of his covenant people. Having spoken a word about the character of God ("God is faithful") and a word about the action of God ("he will not let you be tempted"), Paul now shifts to the second person plural and tells the Corinthians about their responsibilities. He instructs them with the words, "you can bear," thereby jerking them out of any misconceived notions of passivity on the part of a believer in moral choices. Paul next affirms that as temptations occur in the context of temptations to immorality and idolatry, God will provide an exit. As the concluding phrase of v. 13 makes evident, though, the way out which God provides is that the believer endures the temptation. C.K. Barrett's analysis of these concluding thoughts and their connection to the following unit of thought in chapter 10 are quite helpful. The Christian

. . . must resist, and he must not put his trust in false securities; this would be to court and insure disaster. The way out is for those who seek it, not for those who (like the Corinthians) are, where idolatry is concerned, looking for the way in. The connection with the next paragraph makes this clear.

D. IDOL FEASTS AND THE LORD'S SUPPER (10:14-22)

1. The Lord's Supper a Participation (10:14-17)

¹⁴ Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. ¹⁵ I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. ¹⁶ Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? ¹⁷ Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

10:14 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry.

Because of the occurrence of the word "therefore," (diovper, dioper ) commentators have rightly noted that this is Paul's interpretation of how Christians can endure the temptation. They are, namely, to flee from idolatry. When the Corinthian believer is faced with entrapment in idolatrous or immoral activities, Paul does not expect the believer to wait for some deus ex machina to snatch the believer from the jaws of sin. Because of the profound and disastrous results of a saint's participation in idolatry, Paul can think of no better imperative than the word "flee."

10:15 I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.

Since the apostle has no way to coerce cooperation and obedience from the readers at Corinth, he asks them to consider for themselves the nature of their present behavior. He hopes to win them over by persuasion, part of which includes their own self-evaluation. While it is true that Paul's letters are filled with imperatives, it would be much more accurate to portray his letters as attempts at persuasion rather than attempts at coercion. It is this very awareness that has led so many scholars to appreciate the rhetorical quality of Paul's correspondence.

10:16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

Keeping in mind that the eating and drinking of sacrificial food is at the heart of Paul's discussion in 8:1-11:1, it is no surprise that Paul brings up the issue of the eating and drinking of the Lord's Supper in 10:16ff. While Paul will spend more time on the issue of the Lord's Supper in 11:17-34, and there treat it in a totally different context, here he uses the issue of the Lord's Supper to help the Corinthians judge for themselves whether their participation in idolatry is proper.

The reference to "cup of thanksgiving" in 10:16 is a reference to the drinking of the wine as a part of the Lord's Supper. As Paul explains that act in this verse, he goes beyond the notion of memorial (i.e., "do this in memory of me"). In this setting he wishes to emphasize the fact that the drinking of the cup is a participation (koinwniva, koinônia) in the blood of Christ. Christian history is replete with various theories and explanations of Paul's idea here. Witherington's analysis of this is worthy of consideration. He states, "apparently Paul believes that there is more than mere symbols involved in the Lord's Supper. There seems to be some sort of real spiritual communion with Christ, or one might say, an appropriation of the benefits of his death - forgiveness, cleansing, and the like." Most commentators rightly point to the rich Jewish heritage of the "cup of blessing" and Fee, in particular, points out the fact that the NIV translation "cup of thanksgiving" rather than "cup of blessing" has sometimes "caused interpreters to miss the rich Jewish background of this language."

Even though the sequence of partaking of the Lord's Supper according to 1 Cor 11 is bread followed by cup, in 1 Cor 10 Paul discusses these in reverse order. He next introduces the bread and comments that as Christians eat this bread they participate in the body of Christ. According to 11:24 the apostle Paul obviously knew that the bread of the Lord's Supper corresponded to Christ's broken body. Nevertheless, since the term "body" (sw'ma, sôma) can also refer to the body of Christians, we need to be open to that meaning in Paul's statement also.

10:17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

It is in this verse that we find Paul referring to the corporate group of believers with the term "body." The loaf that Paul refers to here surely is the loaf which is broken at the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and not just the common breaking of bread which would characterize regular meals. While early Christians often experienced fellowship with one another at regular mealtimes, the context of Paul's argument here would not be nearly as forceful if he had in mind only a regular meal. In order to argue successfully against Christian participation in religious meals in idolatrous situations, it is necessary for Paul to refer to the Christian meal in which one participates in a special way in communion with the Lord. That the participation in this blood of Christ and body of Christ was a church-wide experience is evident in Paul's use of the word "all" in this verse.

2. The Lord's Table and the Table of Demons (10:18-22)

¹⁸ Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? ¹⁹ Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? ²⁰ No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. ²¹ You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons. ²² Are we trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

10:18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?

Paul reverts again to scriptural examples to undergird the point at hand. The spiritual reality of which Paul is needing to convince the Corinthians is the fact that eating sacrificial meals in a pagan cultic context has profound spiritual implications for the act of idolatry. The verbal link between Paul's affirmation in 10:18 and the preceding arguments in 10:15-17 is the Greek word koinwnoiv (koinônoi) and its cognates, which are translated in the NIV by the words "participation" and "participate." This is Paul's way of proving to the readership that there is an essential connection, attested by scriptural practice, between eating sacrificial food and solidarity with the religion and the deity to whom the food had been offered.

10:19 Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything?

At this point it is necessary for Paul to anticipate and refute possible objections from those Corinthian believers who are unpersuaded by his logic and reasoning. One of the counter arguments that could be made by a Corinthian idolater in the church is to say that Paul's argument falls apart because it assumes the existence of the deity associated with the altar. Therefore Paul raises the question of whether or not his own statement assumes the existence of these pagan deities. If Paul's argument does assume the existence of these pagan deities, then he has just lost his argument against these antagonists, and, in fact, contradicted the monotheistic affirmations which he made in 8:4-6.

Fee makes the observation that the NIV phrase "sacrifice offered to an idol" is incongruous with the flow of Paul's argument since this is the term which was translated in 8:1 as "food sacrificed to idols."

10:20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.

Paul answers with an emphatic "no" to the suggestion that his argumentation requires a belief in the existence of the gods of Greece and Rome. Nevertheless, he argues in this verse that there are malevolent spiritual forces associated with pagan altars even though they could not correctly be identified as the gods and goddesses of Greece and Rome. By this strategic argument Paul is able to continue to affirm Christian monotheism while at the same time advocating a spiritual frame of reference that can justify his imperative to the Corinthians to flee from idolatry (1 Cor 10:14).

Paul then claims that when pagans worship their ostensible gods and goddesses they are in fact offering sacrifice to demons. Continuing to use his theme word koinônoi, Paul teaches that participation in pagan idolatry is in fact participation in demons. Accordingly, the apostle is accusing these Christians who have been assimilated to their religious environment, or perhaps never completely left it, of worshiping demons. As Everett Ferguson makes clear in his important work on demonology in antiquity, Jews, Christians and pagans in the first century all believed in the existence of these malevolent spiritual beings.

10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons.

In dogmatic tones and exclusivistic language, Paul makes clear that his gospel does not allow the kind of religious pluralism being practiced by those believers whom he is addressing in this section. The notion of religious exclusivism reflected in Paul's terse words here have their roots deep in the soil of Old Testament monotheism and covenant jealousy expressed in the Ten Commandments and other important Old Testament texts. In all probability some of these neophyte believers in Paul's churches at Corinth found this kind of religious exclusivism a difficult pill to swallow. They lived in a large metropolitan area in which one could find scores of temples, shrines, and altars to pagan deities, and there would not have been a single part of their education and upbringing that would have told them they could not worship all of these pagan gods and goddesses at the same time. Sounding much like one of the prophets of the Old Testament, the apostle Paul would not tolerate the kind of religious syncretism and pluralism manifested by believers who wish to participate in idolatrous feasts. For the apostle, loyalty to the Lord and loyalty to demons are mutually exclusive.

10:22 Are we trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

It is precisely because Paul knows of the terrible consequences that can fall upon the people of God when they apostasize into immorality and idolatry that he raises the issue of the Lord's jealousy in this verse. The apostle is obviously drawing upon an Old Testament theme that arises from the character of Yahweh. As Fee rightly points out, "the term 'jealousy' is a reflection of the Old Testament motif of God's self-revelation (Exod 20:5), related to his holiness and power, in which he used to be understood as so absolutely without equal that he will brook no rivals to his devotion."

Because of the punitive character of God's actions described in the Old Testament Scriptures which Paul has drawn upon in his argument from 10:1-22, the apostle finishes this unit of thought with a rhetorical question. Do the Corinthians really believe that they are stronger than God? If they answer yes, then Paul would say they are fools. If they answer no, then they should consider the consequences of their idolatrous and immoral behavior. As Calvin noted on this verse, "anyone who fights with God is voluntarily inviting his own ruin, nothing less. Therefore, if we are afraid of having God for an enemy, we should have a greater fear of trying to make excuses for flagrant sins, i.e., anything that is in conflict with his Word. We should also shudder at the thought of calling in question things which he has told us."

3. The Christian's Freedom (10:23-11:1)

²³"Everything is permissible" - but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible" - but not everything is constructive. ²⁴ Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

²⁵ Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, ²⁶ for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." ^a

²⁷ If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. ²⁸ But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake ^b - ²⁹ the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? ³⁰ If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

³¹ So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. ³² Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God - ³³ even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. ¹ Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

^a 26 Psalm 24:1 ^b 28 Some manuscripts conscience' sake, for "the earth is the Lord's and everything in it"

10:23 "Everything is permissible" - but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible" - but not everything is constructive.

In the unit of thought stretching from 10:23-11:1 the apostle introduces the last scenario under which he will analyze the matter of eating food offered to idols. Given the use of quotation marks at 10:23 in the NIV, one sees Paul giving rejoinders to slogans of freedom and liberty coming from believers in Corinth. The twofold repetition of the slogan "everything is permissible" (pavnta e[xestin, panta exestin ) is therefore understood to be the slogan for the philosophy of those who are unconcerned about the consequences of their freedom in the matter of eating food offered to idols. In a response that has some similarities to the contrast between knowledge and love in 8:1ff, Paul here teaches that permission is not the final and sole criterion when determining whether an action is right or wrong. While one certainly needs to ask the question regarding permissibility in ethical matters, Paul emphasizes that one must also ask the question about whether actions are beneficial. Paul's second rejoinder in this verse "but not everything is constructive" has strong verbal parallels to Paul's wording in 8:1. The Greek verb (oijkodomevw, oikodomeô) translated "is constructive" in 10:23 was more accurately translated at 8:1 as "builds up."

10:24 Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

Pauline interpersonal ethics rely heavily on the notion of service to others and loving one's neighbor as oneself (on this point see notes at 1 Cor 14).

10:25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience,

Even if a believer never enters a pagan temple and never participates in a religious sacrificial service to an idol, Paul knows that the believer must still deal with the issue of eating food that had been sold in meat markets which received their meat from idolatrous sacrifices. This fact is well established in classical literature. An amazingly high percentage of meat available in the public market made its way there after having been part of an animal sacrifice in honor of a particular Greek or Roman deity. Paul has no problem with the believer eating food that had been offered to a deity as long as the Christian did not participate in the sacrificial act itself. The fact that Paul has an indifferent attitude toward this kind of food is made evident by the fact that he refers to the issue of conscience in 10:25.

10:26 for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."

The radical monotheism expressed in Ps 24:1 and quoted by Paul here frees the believer from concerns about idolatrous contamination of the food he eats. As long as the believer is not involved in overt worship of an idol, Paul is able to cut the cord between the idolatrous contamination of the meat in a temple sacrifice and its adverse impact upon believers. Since the gods and goddesses of Greece and Rome do not exist, and since everything in the earth belongs to Yahweh, the believer in the Roman colony of Corinth is freed to participate without fear in the consumption of this food.

10:27 If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.

While it is clear in this verse that the invitation to dine comes from an unbeliever, Paul does not explicitly say where the meal will take place. Nevertheless, since this scenario assumes that the believer would not necessarily know the origin of the food, it seems unlikely that the unbeliever is inviting the believer to dine at a pagan temple. For in the temple context the believer would rightly assume that the food had been offered to the deity of the temple in which they were eating. Paul does not specify the particular occasion for this meal. Based upon the ancient evidence available to us, one could speculate about any number of possible occasions for a believer to be invited to dine with unbelievers. If the believer wants to go, Paul says, he may with a clear conscience eat what is put before him. Based upon the implications of the radical monotheism of 10:26, Paul says in 10:27 that the Christian is under no obligation to inquire about the nature of the food and its contact with temple ceremonies.

10:28 But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake -

Paul's depiction of this scene becomes less clear now with his use of the term "anyone." In particular, scholars have debated about who this anyone is. Fee has summarized the options under the following categories. This anyone could be either the host who extended the invitation, or a pagan fellow guest at the same meal, or third, a fellow believer. The line of reasoning and historical arguments used to defend any one of these three possibilities are usually extremely intricate, and none of them are problem free. There are cogent arguments, however, that the anyone of 10:28 is a pagan.

The support for this is philological and is based upon the Greek term which is rendered in the NIV as "has been offered in sacrifice." The term that Paul uses is iJerovquton ( hierothyton ) and is the term a pagan would use to describe this food. This is a completely different term from that which Paul has been using throughout this section which reflects his Christian convictions and refers to idol food. The term that Paul has been using throughout this section is eijdwlovquton (eidôlothyton) and is a pejorative term reflecting his Christian convictions that his food is not sacred food, but rather food that has been offered to an idol. The term "idol" is of course itself a negative term reflecting a Christian conviction and not the convictions of a pagan who believed in these deities.

Once the believer then has learned from the pagan at the meal that this food had been offered to a deity, Paul says that the believer should not consume the food. Equally perplexing is Paul's reasoning when he says that the food should not be eaten both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake. If the person who told you was a pagan, in what way is Paul concerned about this person, and furthermore, what does conscience have to do with this onlooking nonbeliever? It seems to be the case, if Witherington's analysis is correct, that Paul is in fact concerned about the conscience of the pagan who has pointed out to the believer that it is idol meat. "In short, it would be a poor witness," as Witherington argues, "because the host was trying to be sensitive to the Christian's religious persuasion and perhaps assume that Christian's adherence to some derivative sort of Judaism, would like Jews, not partake of such food. . . . So Paul says to abstain for the pagan's sake so as to uphold a good image of moral consistency in the pagan's eye."

10:29 the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience?

Paul reiterates the fact that it is the conscience of another that he is concerned about. Paul may well have anticipated the fact that those at Corinth whom he is attempting to instruct would have claimed that their conscience was clear. If so, one can then see Paul's need to reemphasize that it is the conscience of another that concerns him. While we often think of the offended conscience as belonging to a fellow believer, 10:32ff makes it clear that Paul is concerned about the conscience both of the Christian and the non-Christian. Paul's use of the catchword "my freedom" in 10:29 alerts us to the fact that he is having to persuade fellow saints who are not accustomed to having their freedoms curtailed by the thoughts and opinions of others. The issue of the curtailment of personal freedoms picks up on Paul's treatment of this issue throughout ch. 9.

10:30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

This verse indicates that Paul understands how those whom he is attempting to persuade would respond to his counsel in this section. The occurrence of the two words "thankfulness" and "thank" in this verse points to a situation where believers (who were not so concerned about the good of others; 10:24) would have elevated their own thankful attitude as the sole criterion for whether it was right to eat or not. Once again the apostle is driving his readership to see the point that the sole criterion is not what pleases or satisfies self. Rather the believer must be concerned about how his actions impact others.

10:31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

At this point Paul leaves the prior style of giving specific stipulations and moves on to concluding comments where he gives general principles. The point is that the believer's behavior must be guided by a concern for a transcendent perspective. Unlike the Judaism contemporary with the Apostle Paul and many of the pagan religions of that period, early Christianity as conceived by Paul promulgated no dietary legislation. Accordingly, this correlation of 10:31 between the honor of God and the consumption of food and beverage should not be seen as reflecting first century Christian dietary codes. Rather, for Paul there is no area of life, even mundane meal considerations like those spelled out in 10:23-30, which should not be regulated by a concern for the glory of God.

10:32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God -

Paul's concern about causing anyone to stumble is related to three possible groups of people: Jews, Greeks, or the church of God. In light of the inclusion of the phrase church of God, it seems most natural to understand the term Jews and Greeks to refer to those individuals who are not in the church of God. Since the issue of ethnicity is almost non-existent in Corinthians, as opposed to a book like Romans or Galatians, the two terms Jews and Greeks is a euphemistic way of referring to those who are unsaved.

10:33 even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

A proper interpretation of this verse requires that one perceives the rhetorical exaggeration involved in Paul's claim. Even a cursory knowledge of Paul's life and letters demonstrates that he made many choices which were not an attempt to please everybody in every way (see notes on 9:19-22). The Greek term suvmforon ( symphoron , translated here as "good") is a cognate of the word rendered "is beneficial" in 10:23. Accordingly, Paul begins and ends this section with his thoughts focused on the centrality in Christian ethics of the conviction that in matters of indifference the believer should be focused on the needs of others rather than himself. Paul's inexorable commitment to the good of others manifested in 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10:23-11:1 is based ultimately on his concern about the salvation of others. Paul's use of a purpose clause (i{na [ hina ] + subjunctive) highlights this correlation between his practical ethical advice and his concern for others' relationship to the Lord. (See notes on a similar theme at 9:22.) The apostle realizes that his counsel that one should abdicate his own rights and preferences in deference to the salvation of others finds its genesis in the life and teaching of Jesus himself.

11:1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

The chapter division at 1 Cor 11:1 is somewhat unfortunate since it gives the impression that 11:1 began the new section of 11:1-17. It has been universally acknowledged for centuries that the next unit of thought is found in 11:2-17. Calvin, for example, noted, "This shows us how badly the chapters have been divided, because this sentence [11:1] has been separated from the preceding sentences, to which it belongs by right, and joined to those which follow, to which it is quite irrelevant."

This is the second time that Paul has explicitly urged the Corinthians to imitate his own example (cf. 4:16). This is a fitting way for Paul to conclude the three chapter section, 8-10, wherein we have seen him implicitly urge others to follow his own example in Christian ethics. By correlating his own life and example with that of the example of Christ, Paul is overtly anchoring his moral admonition here in the life and the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. As Robertson and Plummer noted in this regard, "It is seldom that Saint Paul notes any of the details of our Lord's life on earth, and it is therefore unlikely that he is thinking of anything but the subject at hand - sacrificing one's own rights and pleasures for the good of others. Nevertheless, the knowledge which Saint Paul displays of details is sufficient to suggest that he knew a great deal more than he mentions."

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: 1Co 10:16

The cup of blessing which we bless [Not the cup which brings blessing (though it does that), but the cup over which blessing is spoken, the cup consecrated by benediction. Wine becomes a symbol of the blood of Christ by such a consecration, and even ordinary food is sanctified by prayer (1Ti 4:4-5 . Compare Mat 26:26 ; Luk 9:16). But the plural "we" used in this paragraph shows that the blessing and breaking were not the acts of the minister exercising priestly functions, but were the acts of the whole congregation through the minister as their representative. Sacerdotal consecration of the elements is not found here nor anywhere else in the New Testament], is it not a communion of [a participation in or common ownership of] the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? [See Joh 6:41-59]

McGarvey: 1Co 10:17

seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread . [Paul here points out the nature of the Lord's Supper, showing how it unites us with each other and with the Lord. We all partake of the loaf and thereby become qualitatively, as it were, a part of it, as it of us; and even thus we all become members of Christ's one body which it represents and Christ becomes part of us. Such is the unity of the church: Paul had no conception of a divided church. Though there may be more than one loaf at the communion, yet the bread is one in substance, and is one emblem.]

McGarvey: 1Co 10:18

Behold Israel after the flesh: have not they that eat the sacrifices communion with the altar? [In Paul's eyes the church was the true Israel, and the Jews were Israel after the flesh. Part of the Jewish sacrifice was eaten by the worshiper as an act of worship (Deu 12:18), and part was consumed upon the altar as a sacrifice to God; that is, as God's part. Thus the worshiper had communion with the altar, or, more accurately speaking, with God, who owned the altar; a portion of the meat of sacrifice entering his body and becoming part of him, and a portion of it typically entering and becoming part of the Lord. Having thus given two instances showing that sacrificial feasts establish a relationship between the worshiper and the object worshipped, Paul proceeds to make his application of them to idol feasts, and begins by anticipating an objection which the quick-witted Corinthians, seeing the drift of his argument, would begin at once to urge.]

McGarvey: 1Co 10:19

What say I then? that a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? ["But, Paul," say the Corinthians, "your reasoning can not apply to feasts or sacrificial meat offered to idols; for you have already admitted (1Co 8:4) that an idol is a nonentity. By sacrifice a man may establish a communal relationship with God, for God is; but he can establish no such relationship with an idol, for an idol is not-it has no existence." The understanding of the Corinthians with regard to idols was true, but it was not the whole truth, for there was some reality back of the idol.]

McGarvey: 1Co 10:20

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 . [It was true that the idol was nothing, but it represented a reality, and it was well established both among Jews and Greeks that that reality was a demon. Among Jews and Christians this word represented an evil spirit (Deu 32:17 ; Lev 17:7 ; 2Ch 11:15 ; Psa 96:5 ; Psa 106:37 ; Mat 25:41 ; Rev 9:20 ; Eph 6:12). Among the Greeks the word had a broader significance. With them it meant a demi-god or minor deity -- a being between God and men. One part of them were spirits of dead men, mainly dead kings or heroes who had been deified and honored with idols and worship. Another part were regarded as having a supernatural origin, and were like angels. These might be good or evil. Thus Socrates regarded himself as under the care and influence of a good demon. Thus at the core idolatry was demon-worship, and if the Christian who ate the Lord's Supper communed with the Lord, and the Jew who ate the sacrifice of the altar communed with the God of the altar; so the man, be he pagan or Christian, who partook of the idol sacrifice, communed with the demon who appropriated the worship offered to the idol.]

McGarvey: 1Co 10:21

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 . [At the sacrificial feasts of the pagans the provisions and wine were both blessed in the name of the idol, and thereby consecrated to him. Part of the festal cup was poured out as a libation to the idol, after which the guests drank of the cup and thus had fellowship with the idol. See &Aelig;neid 8:273. Outwardly, Christians might partake of both feasts, but it was a moral impossibility for them to do so inwardly and spiritually. We can not be wicked and holy any more than we can be black and white at the same time. We may also note that there were tables in the temples of the idols on which feasts were prepared.]

McGarvey: 1Co 10:22

Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he? [God does not permit a division of his worship (Mat 6:24). Any attempt to do this is said to arouse his jealousy, that passion which arises from wounded love (Isa 54:5 ; Eph 5:23-32 ; Exo 20:5). Paul doubtless has in mind the passage at Deu 32:17-26 ; which shows the necessity of obedience on the part of those not able to resist.]

McGarvey: 1Co 10:23

All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify . [See comment on1Co 6:12]

McGarvey: 1Co 10:24

Let no man seek his own, but each his neighbor's good . [As to eating idolatrous meat and all similar questions of liberty, be more careful to think of the interests of others than to assert your own rights.]

McGarvey: 1Co 10:25

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake ;

McGarvey: 1Co 10:26

for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof . [Psa 24:1 ; Psa 50:12 . Meat sold in the public market might be bought and used by the Christian without stopping to make investigation or to consult his conscience, for when thus sold it was wholly disassociated from the rites of idolatrous sacrifice, and one so using it could not be suspected of doing so as an act of worship. Moreover, all meat was pure, since it had come from the Lord. Being part of the furniture of the earth, it was to be eaten without scruple -- Rom 14:14 ; Rom 14:20 ; 1Ti 4:4-5 ; Act 10:15]

McGarvey: 1Co 10:27

If one of them that believe not biddeth you to a feast, and ye are disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake .

McGarvey: 1Co 10:28

But if any man say unto you, This hath been offered in sacrifice, eat not, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience' sake:

McGarvey: 1Co 10:29

conscience, I say, not thine own, but the other's; for why is my liberty judged by another conscience? [Christianity did not forbid a man to retain his friendships among pagans, nor did it prohibit fellowship with them. If such a friend should ask a Christian to a meal in a private house and not to a sacrificial feast in an idol temple, the Christian need not trouble himself to ask whether the meat that was served was part of all idol sacrifice, for such a dining was in no sense an act of worship. If, however, some scrupulous Christian or half-converted person should point out that the meat was idolatrous, then it was not to be eaten, for the sake of the man who regarded it as idolatrous. But so far as the real question of liberty was concerned, each man's liberty is finally judged by his own conscience and not by that of another. Liberty may be waived for the sake of another's conscience, but it is never thus surrendered. Paul's teaching, therefore, is that food is not tainted, and so it is always right to eat it as food, but all the rites of idolatry are tainted, and the Christian must do nothing which gives countenance to those rites, and for the sake of others he must abstain from seeming to countenance them even when his own conscience acquits him of so doing.]

McGarvey: 1Co 10:30

If I partake with thankfulness, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? [The conscience of another man does not make it wrong for me to do that which I am not only permitted to do by my own conscience, but which I even do in a spirit of prayerful thankfulness. Nor does my doing such a thing give him, or any other, a right to speak evil of me, for I do not have to change my conscience to suit the judgment of others. In theory Paul sided with the strong, but in sympathy he was one with the weak; yet he did not permit them to exercise a vexatious tyranny over him because of their scruples.]

McGarvey: 1Co 10:31

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to, the glory of God . [All eating should be with thanksgiving to God and should not dishonor God by injuring the consciences of weak men -- comp. Col 3:17 ; 1Pe 4:11]

McGarvey: 1Co 10:32

Give no occasion of stumbling [Mar 9:42], either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God :

McGarvey: 1Co 10:33

even as I also please all men in all things [indifferent or permissible], not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved .

Lapide: 1Co 10:1-33

CHAPTER 10

SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTER

From speaking of the contest, in which those who deny themselves and strive lawfully are rewarded, and in which the slothful and self-indulgent are condemned and put to confusion, of which the Apostle treated at the end of the preceding chapter, he goes on to the manners of the Hebrews of old, their lusts and vices, especially idolatry, its punishment and condemnation, that by such examples he may teach the Corinthians how vices and temptations, and especially idolatry, are to be guarded against.

Consequently, in ver. 18 he descends and returns to things offered to idols, and answers a question concerning them which had been broached in chapter viii. And—

i. He lays down that it is not lawful for them to eat of things in so far as they are offered to idols; for this would be to give consent to the sacrifice, and to profess idol worship.

ii. In ver. 22 he points out that it is not lawful to eat of them when the weaker brethren are offended at it. Hence in ver. 31 he recommends to the Corinthians edifying above everything, and bids them do everything to the glory of God and the salvation of their neighbours.

Ver. 1.— Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud. The particle for gives the cause of what was said at the end of the preceding chapter. He means, I have said that Christians must strive after baptism in their contest, lest they become reprobates and lose the prize, as the Hebrews, after their typical baptism and heavenly food, lost slothfully through their sins the land of promise, their prize, so that out of 600,000, Joshua and Caleb alone entered the Promised Land. So do you, O Corinthians, take care, lest, through your sloth, and a life out of harmony with your faith and baptism, you be excluded from heaven. So Chrysostom and Anselm. The argument is from the type or figure to the thing prefigured.

Our fathers, i.e., the fathers of the Jews, of whom I am one, as many of you are, O Corinthians.

Under the cloud. This cloud was the pillar which overshadowed the Hebrews in the daytime as a cloud, and shone at night as a fire, which led them for forty years through the wilderness, which settled over the ark and went before their camp, and protected them from the heat by spreading itself over the camp. Its mover and charioteer, so to speak, was an angel. See Exod. xiii.

And all passed through the sea. The Red Sea, and dry shod, because Moses smote the waters with his rod, and divided them.

Ver. 2.— And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. See Exod. 14. The passage of the Red Sea is a type of baptism, in which we are reddened with the blood of Christ, and drown the Egyptians, viz., our sins. Moses is a type of Christ; the cloud is the Holy Spirit, who cools the heat of lust and gives us light. Theodoret says: " Those things were typical of ours. The sea stood for the font, the cloud for the grace of the Spirit, Moses for the priest, his rod for the cross. Israel signified those who were baptized; the persecuting Egyptians represented the devils, and Pharaoh himself was their chief. "

Unto Moses as the legislator signifies, according to some, that the Hebrews were initiated into the Mosaic law by a kind of baptism when they passed through the sea. So we are baptized into Christ or initiated and incorporated into Christ and Christianity, by baptism. Hence in Exod. xiv., after the account of the passage through the sea, it is added, "They believed the Lord and His servant Moses."

But our baptism was not a type of the baptism of the Hebrews in the Red Sea, but, on the contrary, theirs was a type of ours. Moreover, in this passage the Hebrews were not initiated into the law of Moses, for they did not receive it till they reached Sinai.

I say, then, that since the Apostle frequently puts into for in, it is more simple to understand the phrase to mean through Moses, or under his leadership. So Ephrem, Chrysostom, Theophylact take it. The sense, then, is: all the Hebrews were baptized by Moses spiritually and typically, or bore the type of our baptism, in that, when they saw the sea divided by Moses, and Moses passing through it before, they, as Chrysostom says, also ventured to trust themselves to the sea, and that in the cloud, that is, under the guidance and protection of the cloud going before then, and in the sea, viz., in which the Egyptians were drowned, and through which they passed from Egyptian slavery to liberty and newness of life, just as we pass through the waters of baptism from the service of the devil to the Kingdom of Christ. So Anselm, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theophylact.

Notice, too, with Chrysostom, that the Scriptures give the name of the type to the antitype, and vice versâ. Here the passage through the Red Sea is called a baptism, because it was a type of one. Hence ver. 6 is explained, where he says, "These things were our examples."

Ver. 3.— And did all eat the same spiritual meat. Not, as Calvin supposes, the same as we, as though Christians and Hebrews alike feed, not on the Real Body of Christ, but on the typical.

You will say, perhaps, that S. Augustine ( tract. 25 in Johan.) and S. Thomas explain it to be the same as we eat. I reply: They understand " the same " by analogy, for the Hebrews received typically what we receive really. But this is beside the meaning of the Apostle, who understands the same to refer, not to us but to themselves. All the Hebrews, whether good or bad, ate the same food, that is the same manna. This is evident from the context, " But with many of them God was not well pleased," that is to say, that though all ate the same manna, drank of the same water from the rock, yet all did mot please God. As, then, they had one baptism and one spiritual food, so too have we; and as, notwithstanding, they were not all saved, but many of them perished, so is it to be feared that many of us may perish, although we have the same sacraments common to us all. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Anselm, and others. And notice with them that manna is here called "spiritual food," or mystical, or typical, because the manna was a type of the Eucharist. So the water from the rock is called "spiritual drink," because it was a type of the blood of Christ. Others take "spiritual" to mean miraculous, i.e., not produced by the powers of nature but of spirits, viz., God and the angels; for of this kind was manna, of which the Psalmist says, "So man did eat angels' food" (Ps. lxxviii. 25).

1. Manna allegorically stood for Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, as is evident from S. John vi. 49, 50. Especially did it represent the contained part, and the effect of the sacrament, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Cyril point out at length, in commenting in the passage of S. John just quoted. Hence the Apostle says here: "They did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink." Even Calvin takes this of the Holy Communion, and says that the manna was a type of the body of Christ. From this you may rightly infer that in the Blessed Sacrament the flesh of Christ is truly present, since manna was a symbol of a thing really existing, and not merely imagined; for some of us as well as of the Jews will eat the spiritual meat, i.e., the typical and symbolical flesh, and will not have more of the truth signified than the Jews, nay, much less; for manna was sweeter than our bread, and far more clearly than dry bread represented the body of Christ. A certain minister of this new flock has lately yielded this point as a clear consequence. But who does not see that it is at variance with Holy Scripture and with reason? For the New Law is more excellent than the Old, and therefore the sacraments of the New surpass those of the Old. Therefore the Apostle says: "These things were our examples." But the thing figured is better than the figure, as a body is than its shadow, and a man than his likeness. Therefore the sacraments of the New Law, and especially the Eucharist, as a thing figured, must be more noble than the sacraments of the Old Law, and than the manna itself, which was but a type and figure of our Eucharist. Again, in S. John vi., Christ at some length puts His body in the Eucharist before the manna (vers, 48 and 59). The bread that He there speaks of is that which is Divine, consecrated and transubstantiated into the body of Christ. Who does not see that the manna was a better representation of the body of Christ than bread? It can be shown in many ways.

2. S. Paul has most fittingly compared manna to the body of Christ in the Eucharist, and has most beautifully shadowed it out: ( a ) the element in the Eucharist and the manna have the same colour; ( b ) it is not found except by those who have left the fleshpots of Egypt and the lusts of the flesh; ( d ) to the covetous and to infidels both turn to worms and bring condemnation; ( e ) the manna was not given till after the passing of the Red Sea—the Eucharist is not given till after baptism; ( f ) after the manna came, the Hebrews fought with Amalek, but before that God alone had fought for them against the Egyptians. They fought and conquered; so the obstacles and temptations which beset the heavenly life are allowed by God to trouble those only who are fortified against them, and they are overcome by the power of the Eucharist. ( g ) The manna was bread made by angels, without seed, or ploughing, or any human toil; so the body of Christ was formed of the Virgin alone by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. ( h ) Manna gave every kind of sweet taste to those who were good and devout. Hence Wisdom (xvi. 20) says of manna: "Thou feddest Thine own people with angels' food, and didst give them bread from heaven prepared without labour, containing in itself all sweetness and every pleasant taste." So Christ is milk to babes, oil to children, solid food to the perfect, as Gregory Nyssen says. ( j ) The manna was small: Christ is contained by a small Host; ( k ) the manna was beaten in a mortar: Christ was stripped of His mortality in the mortar of the Cross. ( l ) The faithful wonderingly exclaim, "Man-hu—What is this—that God should be with us!" ( m ) All collected an equal measure of manna, viz., one omer; so all alike receive whole Christ, though the species or the Host be greater of smaller, as Rupert says. ( n ) The manna was collected in the wilderness on the six week-days only; so in our eternal Sabbath and Promised Land the veil of the sacrament will be done away, and in perfect rest we shall enjoy the sight of Christ face to face. ( o ) The manna melted under the sun, so is the sacrament dissolved when the species are melted by heat. More will be found in the commentary on Exod. xxi.

Ver. 4.— For they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them. The rock which gave water to the Hebrews was a type of Christ, who is the true Rock from which flowed the blood to quench the heat of our lust. But what is meant by saying that this rock followed the Hebrews?

1. The Hebrews reply that their tradition, and the Chaldean rendering of Num. xxi. 16, is that this rock miraculously followed the Jews everywhere in the wilderness till they came to Canaan, and supplied them with water. Hence Ephrem renders this, " They drank of the spiritual rock which same with them; " and Tertullian ( de Baptismo, c. ix.) calls this rock their "companion." He says: " This is the water which flowed from the rock which accompanied the people." But farther on he interprets this rock of Christ, who in His Godhead accompanied and led the Hebrews through the wilderness. He says again ( contra Marcion, lib. ii. c. 5): " He will understand that the rock which accompanied them to supply them with drink was Christ." S. Ambrose, too (in Ps. 38) says: " There is a shadow in the rock which poured forth water and followed the people. Was not the water from the rock a shadow of the blood of Christ, who followed the people, though they fled from Him, that He might give them drink and quench their thirst, that they might be redeemed and not perish? " Again, S, Ambrose ( de Sacramentis, lib. v. c. 1) takes the rock to be Christ. He says: " It was no motionless rock which followed the people. Drink, that Christ may follow Thee also. " But I should like to have better authorities for this tradition, for it is against it that after this water came from the rock (Num 20:11), the people murmured again because of the scarcity of water ver. 16).

2. Others soften down the passage and explain it thus: "The waters which burst forth from the rock flowed for a long time and rushed forth as a torrent, and this stream followed the Hebrews till they came to a place where there was plenty of water. For had it been a supply to last but for one day, the rock would have had to be struck on the next day, and the third, and the fourth, and so on, to get a supply of water." And this explanation they support by pointing out that the manna is literal manna, and that therefore the rock or the drink spoken are material rock and material drink; but the objections to the first explanation are equally strong against this.

3. Photius supposes that the word for following simply means serving, and he would paraphrase the verse, "This rock satisfied the thirst of the Hebrews." But the Greek cannot possibly bear this interpretation.

4. It is better, then, to understand this of the spiritual Rock signified, not the one signifying. The meaning is then: By the power of the Godhead of Christ, which was the spiritual Rock signified by the rock that gave water to the Hebrews, and which was their constant companion in the wilderness, water was given to them from the material rock. It is so explained by S. Chrysostom, Ambrose, Anselm, Œcumenius.

It may be said, By "spiritual meat" the Apostle meant manna, not the body of Christ, and by "spiritual drink" he means the water signifying the blood of Christ, not the blood itself; therefore, by parity of reasoning, the "spiritual rock" is the actual rock that typified Christ, not Christ Himself.

I deny the consequence, for the Apostle in speaking of the Rock inverts the phrase, and passes from the sign to the thing signified. This is evident from his saying in explanation of the Rock, "That Rock was Christ." In other words, "When I speak of the spiritual Rock, I mean Christ." What can be clearer? For it was not the material but the spiritual Rock which was Christ: one was type, the other antitype.

It may be urged again, that the phrase "They drank of the spiritual Rock," means that they drank the spiritual or typical drink, for the rock giving this drink was spiritual or typical. This would give the connecting idea, and the reason for saying that "they drank the same spiritual drink," for the rock was a type of Christ.

The answer to this objection is that the sequence of thought is clear enough. The particle for gives the efficient cause of so great a miracle; in other words, the Hebrews drank of water which served as a type, for Christ was foreshadowed by the rock which gave this water, and He miraculously gave them this typical water in order that they might know and worship Christ giving it; but this, as the sequel shows, very many of them did not do.

The rock that gave the water allegorically stood for Christ, because Christ, like a rock most firm, supports the Church, and was smitten, i.e., killed, by Moses, i.e., the Jews, with a rod; that is, the Cross poured forth waters, that is, most fruitful streams of grace, to the faithless of contradiction, to the faithful of sanctification. This is especially true of the waters of His blood in the Eucharist, with which He gives us drink in the desert of this life, that, strengthened by them, we may attain to our country in the heavens. See S. John vii. 37 and iv. 14. S. Augustine ( contra Faustum, lib. xvi. c. 15).

It may be argued: Some Catholic writers, according to the first explanation given above, say that, as "that Rock was Christ" means that it was typical of Christ, so in the same way it can be said of the Eucharist, that "this is My body" means "this bread is a figure of My body."

But add that the Apostle expressly says that he us speaking of the spiritual, not the material rock. "They drank of that spiritual Rock," he says, and "that spiritual Rock was Christ." It is called a spiritual Rock, or typical, because it was a type of Christ. But neither Christ nor S. Paul speak then of the Eucharist.  S. Paul and all the Evangelists uniformly declare that Christ said, "This is My Body," not, "This is My spiritual or typical Body." Secondly, I answer that that explanation of some writers is not a very probable one; for that spiritual Rock, i.e., the One signified, was really Christ, not a type of Him. The words of S. Paul clearly say this.

Ver. 5.— For they were overthrown in the wilderness. All the Hebrews who left Egypt with Moses died for their sins in the wilderness, except Joshua and Caleb, who, with a new generation, entered the Promised Land (Num 14:29).

Ver. 7.— Neither be ye idolaters . . . and rose up to play. Viz., when the Hebrews fashioned and worshipped the golden calf they closed their idolatrous festivities with a banquet. Thus they ate of the victims offered to their idol, that they might, after the manner of the Egyptians, celebrate the worship of this new food of theirs with a banquet and games, Hence it is said, "They rose up to play," i.e., to dance and sing. For Moses (Exod 32:19), when he descended, a little time afterwards, from the mount, saw them dancing. This was the custom of the Gentiles after their sacrifices, and these games were frequently of a most obscene character. Hence the Rabbins and Tertullian ( de Jej. contra Psychicos ) interpret this play of the Jews of fornication and uncleannes. They celebrated, too, public games, which, Tertullian says, were forbidden to Christians, as being held in honour of idols, and on the same level, therefore, as things offered to idols (SeeTert. de Spectac.). But presently the wrath of God came on the people, as they were worshipping the calf and sporting, and 23,000 of them were slain by the Levites at the command of Moses.  S. Paul impresses these thing on the Corinthians, because it was likely that they, before their Christianity, had engaged in such games and feasts, and had eaten of things offered to idols, in honour of their gods, and especially of Venus, to whom they daily offered a thousand maidens for prostitution. They were, too, much given to lust and impurity. Hence here, and in chap. vi. 9, he warns them against fornication. His meaning, then, is: See, O Corinthians, that you do not return to idols, nor eat of things offered to them, and so become partakers of idolatrous sacrifices; and do not give yourselves up to games, to lust, and self-indulgence; otherwise, like the Hebrews, you will be punished by God, as apostates and idolaters, as gluttons and drunkards.

Ver. 8.— As some of them committed. When they worshipped Baal-peor. i.e., Priapus, and in his honour committed fornication with the daughters of Moab (Num. 25.).

And fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Chrysostom, Anselm, Cajetan, refer this to the plague which was sent because of the fornication with the daughters of Moab, and which is related in Num. xxv. But in ver. 9 of that chapter the number slain is given as 24,000, not 23,000. (1.) Some account for this by saying that on one day only 23,000 were slain, and 1000 on the day before. But this is pure conjecture, for Scripture says nothing of this. (2.) Cajetan explains it by an error of some scribe, who wrote 23,000 for 24,000. (3) Œcumenius says that some read 23,000 in Num 25:9 as well as here. (4.) Others say that the Apostle is not wrong, because the greater number includes the less. But it is simpler and more natural to say that the Apostle is referring to Exod. xxxii. 28, where, according to the Roman Bible, 23,00 fell for worshipping the golden calf. S. Paul, if this be so, is not referring to the punishment inflicted on the fornicators of Num. xxv., but by a Hebrew custom he looks back to the idolaters of ver. 7. We must suppose that, having forgotten to mention the punishment inflicted on them, he now gives it as an after-thought: certainly in the sins he goes on to name he in each case adds the punishment. He does this to warn the Corinthians against such sins, and especially because the worship of the calf and the lust accompanying it were exactly parallel, both in punishment and guilt, to the worship and fornication in the matter of Baal-peor.  S. Paul's number agrees with the older rendering of the Greek in Exod 32:28. The LXX. now has 3000.

Ver. 9.— Neither let us tempt Christ by disbelieving His promises, as some of the Corinthians were doubting of the resurrection, as is seen in chap. xv. See 2Pe 3:4.

As some of them also tempted. The reference is to Num. xxi. 5. The words there, "against God," S. Paul here applies to Christ; therefore Christ is God. Hence the Greek Fathers say that the angel who appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and led the Hebrews out of Egypt, was a type of Christ to come in the flesh, i.e., of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

And were destroyed of serpents. See Num. xxi. 6. These fiery serpents are not so called because they were of a fiery nature, for this is repugnant to their true nature, but from the effect of their bite and the heat of their breath: these caused such a heat in those who were bitten that they seemed to be burning, These snakes are called by the Greeks by names (Praester and Canso), which denote burning, and are found in Libya and in Arabia, through which the Hebrews were then passing.

Ver. 10.— As some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer, i.e., the angel by whom God inflicted punishment on the Hebrews for murmuring, because Korah and his followers were swallowed up alive by the earth. Fourteen thousand seven hundred perished by fire (see Num 16:30, Num 16:25, Num 16:40, Num 16:45; Wisd. 18:20; Anselm in loco ). This angel seems to have been Michael, the leader of the people, the giver of the law on Sinai and its vindicator, and a type of Christ, as was said just now (see Exod 23:21). Others suppose that this "destroyer" was an evil angel or a devil, and refer to Psa 78:49. But the Psalmist is speaking of the plague sent on the Egyptians, but Paul of those that God inflicted on the Hebrews. Besides, it is truer to say that the plagues were inflicted on the Egyptians by good angels, not by evil ones; for, as S. Augustine says, when commenting in Psa 78:49, it is well known that it was by good angels that Moses turned the water into blood, and produced frogs and lice; for it was by these miraculous punishments that Moses and the good angels strove against the magicians of Pharaoh and the devils: hence at the third miracle of the lice they exclaimed, "This is the finger of God." The good angels are called, in Psa 78:49, "evil," as inflicters of evil.

The Hebrews murmured very often in the wilderness, and nearly always were punished by God. He thus wished to show that murmuring and rebellion are worse than other sins in His sight. So, in Num. xi., He slew those who murmured through fleshly lust, and the place was therefore called "the graves of lusts." In the same way all who murmured because of the report of the spies, who said that Canaan was a land strongly fortressed, were excluded from it, and perished in the wilderness; and of 600,000, Joshua and Caleb alone entered it (Num. xiv. 29). So were Korah and his followers punished clearly and severely.

Ver. 11.— Now all these things happened unto them for types. Viz., all those here mentioned. We are not to imagine that everything that is related in the Old Testament is merely typical, as though it contained nothing which did not figuratively represent something in the New Testament.  S. Augustine ( de Civ. Dei, lib. xvii. c. 5) says truly: " They seem to me to make a great mistake who think that the things recorded in the Old Testament have no meaning beyond the events themselves, just as much as those people are very venturesome who contend that everything without exception in it contains allegorical meanings."

Gabriel Vasquez (p. 1, qu. i. art. 10, disp. 14, c. 6) rightly points out that the word "figure" or "type" used here, does not mean so much an allegorical sense, or a mystical one, as an example which may be well applied for the purpose of persuasion. Thence S. Paul adds, " they are written for our admonition." In other words, God punished the Hebrews that they might be an example to us, and teach us wisdom.

Upon whom the ends of the world are come. That is, the last age of the world. The Prophets call the time of the Messiah: the last time," (See 2 S. John ii. 18.) Ambrose and Chrysostom add that the Apostle often speaks in this way, as though the end of the world was at hand, that he may keep every one in expectation and in fear of it, that so each one may be taught to prepare for it diligently.

Ver. 12.— Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. S. Augustine ( de Bono Persev. cviii.) says: " It is good for all, or nearly all, not to know what they will be, that each one, from not knowing that he will persevere in good, may humbly and anxiously pray for the grace of God, and with it do all he can to watch against falling and to persevere in grace. "

Ver. 13.— There hath no temptation taken you. The Vulgate reads the verb in the imperative—"let no temptation take you." His meaning is: Be it, O Corinthians, that you are tempted to schisms, lawsuits, lust, idolatry, yet remain constant, for these temptations which take you are common to man, and therefore you can easily overcome them if you like.

If you take the Roman reading, the meaning is, When, as is often the case, any temptation of those which I have mentioned, or any other, attacks your minds, do not take it in and foster it, so as to let it grow imperceptibly in power, and to become at last unconquerable: for it is impossible to exclude altogether human and light temptations so as to never feel them. Anselm says: " To be overcome by malignant temptation and to sin from malice is devilish: not to feel its power is angelic; to feel it and overcome it is human." See also S. Gregory ( Pastoral. i. cxi.).

God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able. If God does not suffer us to be tempted beyond our strength, therefore much less, or rather in no way does God impel us to sin, as Calvin thinks.

2. Nor does God enjoin impossibilities, as Luther thinks, not foes He even permit them.

3. It follows from this that we can be so strongly tempted by the devil and the flesh as to be unable to resist if the grace of God does not succour us, as Chrysostom and Anselm say.

4. As a matter of fact there is no temptation so great but that it can be overcome by the grace of God.

5. The best remedy, therefore, against temptation is prayer, by which we call down the help of God from distrust of our own strength (S. Matt. xxvi 41).

6. This grace is promised here and elsewhere, not inly to the elect, but to all who duly call on God. See also decrees of the Council of Trent (Sess. xxiv. can. 9, and Sess. vi. can. 11). For the Apostle is speaking to the Christians at Corinth, many of whom were not elect, but some contentious, causing offence, and drunken (chap. xi. 21). What is more, none of them knew that they were elected, so as to be able to apply this consolation to themselves exclusively.

7. It is in the power of each Christian to obtain sufficient help to overcome all temptations and all sins; for God pledges His word to them to this, and He is One to be trusted, as the Apostle says here. His meaning is: no temptation can take you, except on your own side and by your own negligence; for on God's side I pledge myself that God, who is faithful, will perform what He has promised, and will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able, i.e., will not allow you to be tempted, except by human temptation. Understand, however, that this is if you seek His grace and help, as is right, and co-operate with Him. " God," as S. Augustine says ( de Nat. et. Gratia, c. 43), and following him, the Council of Trent (Sess. vi. can. ii.), " God does not order impossibilities when He orders us to resist every temptation; but when He orders, it is to bid us to so what we can, to seek help for what we cannot, and then He lends the strength." See S. Matt. xi. 30 and 1 S. John v. 3.

S. Ephrem beautifully illustrates this saying of the Apostle as follows: " If men," he says, " do not put upon their beasts more weight than they can bear, much less will God put on men more temptations than they can bear. Again, if the potter bakes his vessels in the fire until they are perfected, and does not remove them before they are properly baked and of the right consistency, and again does not leave them in too ling, lest they be burnt too much and so become useless: much more will God do the same with us, trying us with the fire of temptations until we are purified and perfected; but beyond that point He will not suffer us to be scorched and consumed with temptation. " ( de Patientiâ )

But will with the temptation also make a way to escape. God, who suffers you to fall into temptation, will also make it turn out well, as Erasmus and Augustine ( in Ps. lxii and Ep. 89) understand it. He makes it good for you and your salvation, and will enable you to come out of it without less, nay, rather victoriously and with glory, as Anselm says.

1. The word translated "way of escape." according to Theophylact, Œcumenius, and the Greeks, means a happy end of the temptations, so that it turns out well and promotes the good of the tempted; for God will either bring the temptation to a speedy ending, or not permit it to go on to the fourth day, if He knows that we cannot bear it for more than three days, as S. Ambrose says; or if He gives it linger life He gives us the power of bearing it, as Ambrose and Anselm say.

2. It does not signify any way of escape, but such a way as when a soldier comes out victorious from a battle of a single combat, more renowned and even with increased strength and courage. So have the saints come out of temptation. The Greek word then also means a progress. Not only will God make the temptation no obstacle, but a means even of advancement, causing an increase of strength, virtue, grace, victory, and glory, a more certain walk in the way of virtue and in the road to heaven. So Photius.

That ye may be able to bear it. The Greek literally means, "to more than bear it," i.e., so to bear it that strength remains over and above to bear something farther. God hives such help that any one can overcome temptation with flying colours, Hence the Fathers often remark that men advance in virtue through temptations chiefly; the reason is, that no one can resist them, except by putting forth contrary acts of virtue strongly and intensely, and where temptation brings out such acts it strengthens and intensifies their habits.

3. The righteous wins merit by such acts; he seeks and receives from God an increased infusion of grace and all virtues.

Ver. 14.— Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. Not only avoid the worship which is given in sacrificing to and calling on idols, but also abstain from eating things offered to idols from any feeling of their sanctity, as the heathen eat them when the sacrifice is completed, either at the altars of in the temples. So you would share in their sacrifices, and would be thought to approve of them, and even to offer them. The Apostle is now going on to speak of the eating of things offered to idols. Chapter ix. was a long digression about a paid or unpaid ministry, about the Christian contest, the prize, and the competitors; the earlier part of chap. x. has been about the sins and punishments of the Hebrews; and now, after this long digression, he returns to the subject of things offered to idols, which was begun in chap, viii. The "wherefore" signifies, then, that he had written all that precedes for the purpose of warning them against idolatry and idol-offerings.

Ver. 16.— The cup of blessing which we bless. (1.) That is the wine in the chalice which is blessed by the priest, and hence the chalice itself, containing this consecrated wine, does it not communicate to us the blood of Christ? (2.) It may be called the cup of blessing, because it blesses us and loads us with grace, as Anselm and Chrysostom say. (3.) More accurately, it is called "the cup of blessing," because Christ blessed it before consecration, i.e., called down the power of God to afterwards effect a change both in the bread and in the cup (S. Matt. xxvi. 26).

1. We see from the accounts of the Last Supper in S. Mat 26:20-32., S. Luk 22:14-22, and here and in 1Co 11:23-29 that Christ, before consecration of the Eucharist, gave thanks to God thee Father, and, as He was wont, lifted up his eyes to heaven, as is enjoined in the Roman Canon of the Mass and in the Liturgy of S. James. Hence this sacrament is called the Eucharist, or Thanksgiving, because it is the greatest act of grace, and consequently is to be received with the greatest thanksgiving.

2. Christ blessed the bead and wine, not, as heretics say, His Father. And so Paul says expressly, "The cup which we bless." Christ blessed the bread and the cup, i.e., invoked the blessing and power of God on the bread and wine, that it might be present, both then and at all future consecrations, to change the bread into the body, and the wine of the chalice into the blood of Christ, when ever the words of consecration should be duly pronounced. Of the same kind was the blessing of the bread in S. Luke ix. 16. This blessing, then, was not the consecration, though S. Thomas thinks that it was (pt. iii. qu. 78, art. i. ad 1). Hence in the Liturgies of S. James and S, Basil, and in the Roman, after Christ's example, God is prayed to bless the gifts, that the Divine power may descend upon the bread and the cup to complete the consecration; and it is thence that we have "the cup of blessing," i.e., the cup blessed by Christ.

Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? 1. The communion, or communication, of the body and blood of Christ not only signifies that we receive the same body and the same blood of Christ, but also, as is said in ver. 17, we become one body and one blood. Therefore, the sacrament is not a type of the blood, as Calvin thinks, but it is the very blood of Christ itself, and is given to us in the Eucharistic chalice. If I were to say, "I give you a golden one," you would rightly understand that I did not mean a painted one. If I were to invite you to dinner, and a feast on the hare or stag caught in the chase, and instead of the hare or stag were to put before you on a dish a picture of animals, should I not be acting ridiculously?—should I not hear myself called an impostor? Are not then the Protestants who transform the blood and flesh of Christ, which He declares that He gives, into a figure of that blood and flesh, acting ridiculously? Are they not making Christ an impostor?

2. If this cup is only a figure of the blood, as the Protestants think, then we have not more, but less, in the Eucharist than the Jews had in the manna and the water miraculously provided for their drink. The apostle, too, should have said that we eat the spiritual body and drink the spiritual blood of Christ, that is that which represents them, just as he said that the Jews ate the spiritual meat—the manna, and drank the spiritual drink—the water from the rock. But as a fact he contrasts the blood and the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist, as the reality and the thing signified, with the manna and water, as the figure and spiritual type, signifying the flesh and blood of Christ. Moreover, he calls the manna spiritual meat, i.e., typical, and the water, spiritual drink; but he calls the body of Christ in the Eucharist the body, and the blood the blood. Who, then, can doubt that, as the manna was truly a type and shadow, so in the Eucharist there is really the blood, flesh, and body of Christ?

3. Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, S. Thomas expressly explain this passage in this way. Theophylact says: " He does not say the 'participation,' but the 'communion,' because he wished to indicate something more excellent, viz., the closest possible union. What he really says is this: What is in the chalice flowed from the side of Christ; and when we receive it, we have communion with, or are united to Christ. Are you not then ashamed, O Corinthians, to have recourse to the cup of idols, and to leave this cup which sets us free from idols? "

S. Chrysostom most plainly dwells on this thought ( in Hom. 24, Moral.), where, exhorting Christians to mutual charity through Holy Communion, he says: " If, then, dearly beloved, we understand these things, let us also strive to maintain unity among ourselves; for this dreadful and wonderful sacrifice leads us to this: it bids us approach one another with concord and perfect charity, and, like the eagles that Christians have been made in this life, let us fly to heaven itself, or rather above the heavens." And again a little further on he thus explains what the body of Christ in the Eucharist is like: " If no one would lightly lay hold of another man's clothing, how can we receive with insults the pure and immaculate body of the Lord, which is a partaker of the Divine Nature, through which we are and live, which burst open the gated of hell and opened heaven? This is the body which was pierced by nails, scourged, unconquered by death; this is the body at the sight of which the sun hid his rays; through which the veil of the Temple was rent, and the rocks and the whole earth quaked; this is the body which was suffused with blood, pierced by the spear, and which poured forth streams of blood and water to regenerate the wwole world." And a little further on he says that the body of Christ in the Eucharist is the same as was in the manger: " This body in the manger the Magi adored, and with great fear and trembling worshipped. But thou seest Him not in a manger, but on the altar. It is not a woman holding Him in her arms that you see, but a priest is before you, and the spirit shed abundantly upon the sacrament spread forth. Let us, therefore, be stirred up and fear, and show greater devotion than ever those barbarians did." And after some other remarks he asserts mist clearly that in the Eucharist we touch and feed on God Himself, and receive from Him all good thing, saying: " This table is the strength of our soul, the vigour of our mind, the bond of mutual trust, our foundation, hope, and salvation, our light and our life, If we depart fortified by this sacrifice, we shall with the greatest confidence climb the sacred hill which leads to heaven's gate. But why speak of the future? For even while we are here in this life, this mystery makes earth heaven: for the body of the King is set before our eyes, on earth, as it is in heaven. I show you, not angels or archangels, not heaven or the heaven of heavens, but the Lord of them all. Nor do you merely gaze on Him: you touch Him, you feed on Him: you receive not a child of man, even though of kingly birth, but the Only-Begotten Son of God. Why, then, do you not shudder at such Presence, and cast away the love of all worldly things? "

A new preacher of a new word of God has lately answered these words by saying that S. Chrysostom spoke rhetorically. But this evasion is as silly as futile; for S. Chrysostom is, I admit, an orator, but he is also a teacher of Christian truth. Hence in his commentary itself, he days that he is treating of the literal meaning of the Apostle. It is true that in the application of his sermon he does enlarge on that meaning, but not so as to exceed or to deny the truth, as, i.e., if he were to say that wood is stone, that a man is a brute, that bread is flesh; else he would not be an orator, but a lying impostor, and that in matters of faith. For an orator would be false and foolish who should say that the water of baptism was the very same blood of Christ that flowed from His side, when the Jews pierced His body with nails, and smote it with scourges; if he were to say that it was the God and Lord of all, he would no doubt mean that the water of baptism is a type of the blood of Christ, who applied it to us to wash away our sins. In the same way he is false and foolish who says that the bread and wine are the very blood, the very body of Christ, which was adored by the Magi in the manger, nailed to the Cross, scourged, and crucified by the Jews, nay, that it is the very Lord of all things, and the Only-Begotten Son of God, as S. Chrysostom says. I appeal to you, reader, to read these words of his candidly and impartially, or to say whether they are true of the manna, of the Paschal lamb, or of any such type. Would S. Chrysostom have spoken of them thus? Would Calvin, or Viretus, or Zwinglius, or any of their following, no matter how eloquent an orator he might be, speak of their supper in this way? If it is lawful t sublimate and invert the meanings of authors and the words of the Fathers in this way, it will be lawful to invert all faith, all history, all the opinions of these men, and to twist them to a totally different sense, all this will better appear in the following verses.

The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? The sense is, The communication to us, or the eating of the bread which we break, communicates to us also the very body of Christ, so that each one actually partakes of it in the Eucharist.

It may be said: The Eucharist is here called the bread, therefore it is not the flesh of Christ.

I reply that bread, by a Hebraism, stands for any food (2Ki 2:22). So Christ is called manna (S. Joh 6:31), and bread ( Ibid. ci. 41). The reason is that bread is the common and necessary food of all. Moreover, S. Paul does not say "bread" simply, but "the bread which we break," i.e., the Eucharistic or transubstantiated bread, which is the body of Christ, and yet retains the species and power of bread. In this agree all the Fathers and orthodox doctors. Christ, on other occasions as well as in the Last Supper, is said to have broken and distributed the bread, according to the Hebrew custom by which the head of the house was wont to break the bread and divide the food among the guests sitting at table. For the Easterns did not have loaves shaped like ours, which need a knife to cut them up, but they used to make their bread into wide and thin cakes, as, amongst others, Stuckius has noticed ( Convival. lib. ii. c. 3). Hence "to break bread" signifies in Scripture "to feast," and breaking bread signifies any feast, dinner, or meal. In the New Testament it is appropriated to the Eucharist; therefore "to break bread" is a sacramental and ecclesiastical term. Hence S. Paul calls here the Eucharist "the bread which we break," meaning the species of the body of Christ which we break and consume in the sacrament. See further on c. xi. 24.

Ver. 17.— For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. As one loaf is made out of many grains of wheat, so of many faithful is made one holy and living bread, the one mystical body of Christ, the Church. Not only generally and mystically, but properly and substantially, because all are really united to the body of Christ, and become one with it, in the Eucharist, just as food becomes one with him that eats it. Hence it may be rightly argued against Protestants that we all eat really the same body of Christ. They, however, say that in the Eucharist all Christians become one, because they eat the same sacramental bread, which is a type of the body of Christ. But who share in it one, merely because they sit at the same table and eat of the same bread? It would be a statement at once untrue and foolish. It is, however, true when applied t the body of Christ, because we all feed on what is numerically one, especially because this holy bread, as S. Augustine says, when eaten, is not changed into our substance, but rather changed us into its own, and unites us to itself and makes us like it, which ordinary bread does not do. Here Cyril of Alexandria ( in Joan. lib. iv. c. 17) says: " As wax is incorporated into wax, and leaven permeated through bread, so do we become fused into the body of Christ." And Cyril of Jerusalem ( Catachesis, 4) says: " In Holy Communion we become, not only bearers of Christ, but also sharers of the same body and the same blood as He." This is because we become one with Christ and Christ with us, because we are really blended with the flesh of Christ, and therefore with his Person, His 244 Godhead, and His omnipotence. Irenæus says the same (lib. iv. c. 34), and Hilary ( de Trin. lib. viii.).

It is for this reason that the Eucharist is called Communion by the Fathers: it really unites us to the body of Christ, so that all become one in Him and with Him. " Communion," then, is the common union of the faithful, who, by feeding on the same true body of Christ in the Eucharist, are made one mystical body, the Church. So says Bede, following S. Augustine. Hence, too, the Council of Trent (sess. xii. c. 8) says: " This sacrament is the sign of unity, the bond of charity, the symbol of peace and concord," no doubt because, in a wonderful way, it signifies and perfects the unity of the body of Christ, i.e., of the faithful of the Church. For this reason, too, the Eucharist was formerly given to infants after their baptism, that they might be perfectly incorporated into Christ ( vide S. John vi. 55). Again for the same reason the Eucharist was called by S. Dionysius, Synaxis, i.e., "congregation," because the faithful were in the habit of assembling in the church to receive the Eucharist. Tertullian even says ( de Oratione, cap. ult.) that prayer should end when the body of the Lord has been received. The Apostle too, in the next chapter (ver. 20), says: " When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper." For although the Church becomes the body of Christ through faith and baptism, yet this is done more truly and properly in the Eucharist.

Heretics raise the objection that therefore only the good and righteous are parts and members of the Church, for the Apostle says, "We are all one bread;" but bread, they say, is made from grains of wheat, not from chaff; therefore the Church is formed from the righteous, not from the wicked; for the righteous are the corn, the wicked are the chaff.

I reply (1.) that this does not follow, because a similitude is not bound to be in all points alike; (2.) that the major premiss is false, for often chaff, grains of sand, lentils are mingled with the wheat, and with it go to make up the bread. Hence S. Paul (c. xi. 29) says that even the wicked eat of this bread. But here he says that all who partake of this bread make up the one body of Christ, which id the Church: therefore the wicked, also, who eat of this bread are of the Church. Vide S. Cyprian ( Ep. ad Magnum, lib. i.; Ep. 6).

Ver. 18.— Behold Israel after the flesh . . . partakers of the alter? That is, of the victim offered on the altar, by metonymy. All this is meant to prove that things sacrificed to idols ought not to be partaken of; and the sense is: See, O Corinthians, Israel after the flesh: when they eat of the victims offered to God, are they not deemed to be partakers of the sacrifice offered on the altar to God, and to consummate the sacrifice, and in a sense therefore to sacrifice? In the same way that they who eat of the Eucharistic bread are sharers of the Eucharistic sacrifice, are they who eat of things offered to idols sharers of idolatrous sacrifices: they consummate them, and in a sense sacrifice to idols. He proves, from the example of the Jews, that they who eat of things sacrificed to idols give their consent to such sacrifices, and tacitly sacrifice to those idols.

Ver.19.— What say I then? that the idol is anything, &c. By no means: for the idol and that offered to it are nothing, have no influence or power. See viii. 4.

Vers. 20, 21. — But I say . . . Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and of the table of devils. The table is the altar, which is, as it were, God's table at which He feasts with us, See Lev. i.;  Mal 1:12; Ambrose, Anselm, and the Council of Trent (sess. xxii. c. 1), where it lays down from this passage that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. For that the Apostle is dealing with the Eucharist and not with the sacrifice of the Cross appears plainly—1. Because the Victim of the Cross has passed away, and long ago creased; but the Apostle is here treating of a sacrifice of which the Corinthians were partakers daily.

2. From the phrase, "the Lord's table," i.e., the altar. Where there is an altar there is a priest and a sacrifice, for the three are correlative terms. If, then, the Corinthians had an altar, they had also a sacrifice, and that of course none other than the Eucharist.

3. "The cup of the Lord" can only be the cup offered to the Lord, for the cup of devils is none other than the one offered to them.

From the context, and the line of the Apostle's argument, which is this: As the Jews, when they eat if their peace-offerings, share in and consent to the sacrifice of them that is made on God's altar, so do those who eat of things sacrificed to idols share in and consent to the sacrifice of them that is made to idols; and so do Christians, when they receive the Eucharist, become partakers of the Eucharistic sacrifice, and sacrifice the Eucharist to God by the priest, It is consequently unseemly altogether that they should also sacrifice to a devil, which they do by partaking of things offered to idols, as a part of the idolatrous sacrifice; for no one can at once sacrifice to God and a devil. Cf. S. Augustine ( contra Advers. Legis et Prophet. lib. i. c. xix). Chrysostom in loco, Anselm, Theophylact, Œcumenius, Ambrose, Theodoret say the same thing.  S. Cyprian ( de Lapsis ) expressly teaches the same lesson, and confirms it by the numerous examples of those who, after eating of things offered to idols, came to the Eucharist, and were punished by God accordingly; and he adds: " An earthly commander will not suffer any one of his soldiers to fly to the camp of his enemies and there to work; how much less can God suffer His followers to take part in the banquets of devils? "

Notice (1.) that when the sacrifice was completed, the flesh which had been offered on the idol's altar was removed from it to a table, near the altar or temple, in order that they who had offered it might, with the friends they had invited, eat of it there; for sacrifices and religious feasts were generally concluded with such a sacred banquet. Cf. the sacrifice offered by Evander and Æneas in Virgil (Æneid, viii. 179-183). So, too, the Jews were in the habit of eating in the porch before the Temple of the sacrifices which they had offered (1 Sam. ix.13). So, too, Christ concluded the concluded the Eucharistic sacrifice with a banquet in it, and a distribution of it to the Apostles. Hence, too, in the primitive Church, all the faithful communicated at the Mass, that they might be partakers of the sacrifice, and conclude it with such a banquet. Again, the heathen, who sacrificed victims to their idols, used, after the sacrifice, to carry home with them portions of it to give to those in their house, and to send to their friends, that so the absent might be partakers of the sacrifice, as Giraldus ( de Diis Gentium ) points out from Herodotus and others, Similarly, the Christians in the time of persecution used to carry home the Eucharist, and even sent it to the absent, as a mark of love and communion, and to enable them to be partakers of the sacrifice. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. lib. v. c. 24 and 29.

Notice (2.) that the Apostle gives a plain answer to the question whether it was lawful to eat of things offered to idols. He says that it never had been, nor was then, lawful to eat of things offered to idols, as such, or as being sacred to idols. He who so eats of them tacitly admits by the very act that the idol is sacred, has some Divine influence, and that, because of the idol, the flesh offered is sacred, because offered to a Divine being, which is idolatry. This takes place whenever such food is partaken of in such a place, in such a way, and under such circumstances, as that the eater is morally thought to eat it out of honour to the idol, as when the offerers sent portions to their friends with the intention of showing worship to the idol, when their friends received and ate them. Again, the case is still more clear, if you eat directly after the sacrifice, near the altar of the temple, together with those that offer the sacrifice, in presence of idolaters; for then you are rightly judged to eat it to the honour of the idol. It is otherwise if afterwards you feed on it alone, and from hunger of greediness, whither it be at home of at the temple, because in that case you are not thought to feed on it as being sacred to the idol, but you are seen to be merely gratifying your hunger or appetite. It may be said, S. Augustine ( Ep. 154, and de Bono Conj. c. xvi., and contra Faustum, lib, xxxii. c. 13) asks whether a Christian, when travelling and pressed by hunger, may, if he can find nothing but some food offered to an idol, and if no one is present, eat of it, or whether it is better for him t die; and he answers, It may be said that it is either known to have been offered to the idol or not; if it is known, it is better for it to be rejected by Christian virtue; if it is not known, it may be taken for his necessity without any scruple of conscience." Otherwise, as I have said, it is better to reject it, lest the eater should seem to have communicated with idols. He ought then to abstain from things offered to idols, if they are known to be such.

I reply that S. Augustine does not say that he must abstain from it, if he knows that it has been so offered. He says "it is better for it to be rejected by Christian virtue," implying pretty plainly that it is lawful to eat of it, but that it would be better and more noble if he abstained from it and preferred death. There is a parallel case in the Carthusian rule. One in extreme weakness is allowed to eat flesh to save his life; but he will do what is better and more holy if he follow his profession and abstain and so die. Cf. Victoria ( Relect. de Temperant. num. 8), Azorius ( Morals, lib. v. c. 6), and others. For he is not bound to save his life at all costs, but he may rank it below his vow, or rather the holiness of his profession, so as to give as example of virtue to others, and to hallow the discipline and rigour of his order. The Carthusians do not take a formal vow of abstinence from flesh, but merely have it enjoined on them by the constitution of their order.

Ver. 22.— Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? I.e., to anger. Do we set up a rival to the Lord? De we leave Him, our Bride-groom, and cling to a devil, and the things offered to him, or at all events wish to serve both, and yoke together God and the devil? So Chrysostom, Anselm, Theophylact.  S. Paul is alluding to Deu 32:21.  S. Jerome, commenting of Habakkuk ii., rightly says the unclean spirits preside over all idols, and answer those who call on the idols, and give oracular replies, and lend them help.

Are we stronger than He? By no means; therefore our provoking God to anger will not go unpunished by Him.

Ver. 23.— All things are lawful for me. Viz., all things that are not essentials, such as to eat of things offered to idols, not as sacred, or as things sacrificed, but as common food. So far Paul has treated of things offered to idols as such, and has forbidden the use of them. Hence, in ver. 14, he bids the Corinthians fly from idolatry, i.e., the meats of ver. 20. But in this verse he passes on to the second case, when meat that has been offered to idols is partaken of, not formally as such, but materially, as mere food or flesh; and with regard to this he says, " All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient," Because all things do not edify. Materially, you may eat of things offered to idols considered in themselves, but if there is attached to such action the giving of offence, then you may not; see vers. 27, 28, 33. Clement ( Stromata ) well said: " They who do whatsoever is lawful will easily sink into doing what is unlawful." Theophylact explains this verse differently, but his explanation is beside the drift of the context.

Ver. 24.— Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth. Let no one seek or buy flesh which, e.g., has been offered too idols, and which is useful and pleasant to himself, just because it is of a low price; but in such matters let each one seek his neighbour's edification, and not to buy it or eat it, so as o cause him offence or spiritual loss. So Theophylact.

Ver. 25.— Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question. Eat indifferently everything, whether offered to idols or not. Asking no question, i.e., making no difference, or according to S. Ambrose, making no inquiry; according to Theophylact, without hesitation.

Herodotus tells us, as well as S. Augustine in the commentary he commenced on the Epistle to the Romans (c. 78), that the heathen custom was to send t the shambles whatever remained over of the sacrificed meats after the feast, and to give the priests the proceeds. In the shambles, therefore, they were looked upon as any other meats, as having returned to secular and common use.  S. Augustine says: " Some weaker brethren at that time abstained from flesh and wine, lest they should unknowingly partake of things offered to idols; for all kinds of sacrificial flesh were offered for sale in the shambles, and the heathens used to pour out libations of wine to their images, and even to offer sacrifices at their wine-presses." Hence the Apostle dispels this scruple, and bids them buy and eat freely whatever was sold in the shambles, making no distinction between meats, nor asking where they same from, as if it were a matter of conscience, or as though the flesh needed cleansing, if it came from an idol's temple. The Christians of Antioch followed this teaching of the Apostles, when Julian the Apostate endeavoured to force them into idolatry through idol meats. Theodoret ( lib. i. c. xiv.) thus describes the incident: "Julian first polluted the water-spring with victims offered to idols, so that every one who drank of the water was infected. He then polluted in the same way whatever was offered for sale in the market; for bread, flesh, fruits, vegetables, and all other eatables were sprinkled with this water; but when the Christians saw this, though they could not but grieve and detest the wickedness, still they ate of such things, in obedience to the injunction to the Apostle: "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles that eat, asking no question."

For conscience sake, as though you were bound to ask whether the meat which they wish to sell has been offered to idols, it being not lawful for you to buy and eat such. So Anselm, Ambrose, Theodoret. It is evident from this that Paul is not speaking of the fasts of the Church, or saying that on any day, even a fast day, it is lawful to eat meat which is exposed for sale in the shambles. For these fasts do not belong to the class of non-essentials, but are precepts of the Church. Therefore S. Paul, in Acts 15., 16., ordered the decree concerning abstinence from things strangled and from blood to be observed, though it was a mere positive precept enjoined by the Apostles alone.

Ver. 26.— For the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof. Every creature, because it is the Lord's, is good and clean; so, too, things offered to idols are not unclean, as you suppose, because they have been offered to a devil, but are clean, because created by the Lord. So Chrysostom, Theophylact,, Anselm. Theophylact gives another meaning as well: "Abstain from all food sacrificed to idols, for the whole earth is the Lord's, and you can be abundantly satisfied from other sources." But this meaning is not suited to the context, especially, to the injunction, "Eat whatever is sold in the shambles."

Ver. 27

Commentary -- Other

Evidence: 1Co 10:20

To many, Eastern religions have a sense of romantic mysticism. It must therefore be a surprise to find that India has 220 million cows that are worshiped as the supreme givers of life (God). The cow’s hooves are bathed in religious ceremonies. Their urine is considered holy and is used to anoint believers. The animal’s dung is also applied to the skin of the faithful in religious rituals. They believe that all the gods inhabit some part of the cow’s body. A Christian revival in India would not only provide eternal salvation for the country, but would also release enough meat to feed their hungry population.

QUESTIONS & OBJECTIONS

" Why is Christianity better than other religions?"

In all major religions, the followers strive to rid themselves of sin through various practices. They may pray in a prescribed way, do various good works, deny themselves legitimate sexual pleasure, follow dietary restrictions, lie on beds of nails, etc. The uniqueness of Jesus is shown in His statement, " The Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins." No other religious leader has ever made this claim. Jesus Christ alone can wash away every sin anyone has ever committed, because of what He did on the cross. By paying the penalty for our sin, He can release us from the torture of guilt. We cannot do anything in the way of religious works to wash away our sins. Forgiveness is a free gift of God ( Eph 2:8-9 ). To see what " religion" does (or rather doesn’t do), see what Mahatma Ghandi has to say in Rom 7:24-25 .

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

First Corinthians

From Ephesus a.d. 54 Or 55

By Way of Introduction

It would be a hard-boiled critic today who would dare deny the genuineness of I Corinthians. The Dutch wild man, Van Manen, did indeed argue that Paul wrote no epistles if indeed he ever lived. Such intellectual banality is well answered by Whateley’s Historic Doubts about Napolean Bonaparte which was so cleverly done that some readers were actually convinced that no such man ever existed, but is the product of myth and legend. Even Baur was compelled to acknowledge the genuineness of I and II Corinthians, Galatians and Romans (the Big Four of Pauline criticism). It is a waste of time now to prove what all admit to be true. Paul of Tarsus, the Apostle to the Gentiles, wrote I Corinthians.

We know where Paul was when he wrote the letter for he tells us in 1Co_16:8 : " But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost." That was, indeed, his plan, but the uproar in Ephesus at the hands of Demetrius caused his departure sooner than he expected (Acts 18:21-20:1; 2Co_2:12.). But he is in Ephesus when he writes.

We know also the time of the year when he writes, in the spring before pentecost. Unfortunately we do not know the precise year, though it was at the close of his stay of three years (in round numbers) at Ephesus (Act_20:31). Like all the years in Paul’s ministry we have to allow a sliding scale in relation to his other engagements. One may guess the early spring of a.d. 54 or 55.

The occasion of the Epistle is made plain by numerous allusions personal and otherwise. Paul had arrived in Ephesus from Antioch shortly after the departure of Apollos for Corinth with letters of commendation from Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:28-19:1). It is not clear how long Apollos remained in Corinth, but he is back in Ephesus when Paul writes the letter and he has declined Paul’s request to go back to Corinth (1Co_16:12). Some of the household of Chloe had heard or come from Corinth with full details of the factions in the church over Apollos and Paul, clearly the reason why Apollos left (1Co_1:10-12). Even Cephas nominally was drawn into it, though there is no evidence that Peter himself had come to Corinth. Paul had sent Timothy over to Corinth to put an end to the factions (1Co_4:17), though he was uneasy over the outcome (1Co_16:10.). This disturbance was enough of itself to call forth a letter from Paul. But it was by no means the whole story. Paul had already written a letter, now lost to us, concerning a peculiarly disgusting case of incest in the membership (1Co_5:9). They were having lawsuits with one another before heathen judges. Members of the church had written Paul a letter about marriage whether any or all should marry (1Co_7:1). They were troubled also whether it was right to eat meat that had been offered to idols in the heathen temples (1Co_8:1). Spiritual gifts of an unusual nature were manifested in Corinth and these were the occasion of a deal of trouble (1Co_12:1). The doctrine of the resurrection gave much trouble in Corinth (1Co_15:12). Paul was interested in the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem (1Co_16:1) and in their share in it. The church in Corinth had sent a committee (Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus) to Paul in Ephesus. He hopes to come himself after passing through Macedonia (1Co_16:5.). It is possible that he had made a short visit before this letter (2Co_13:1), though not certain as he may have intended to go one time without going as he certainly once changed his plans on the subject (2Co_1:15-22). Whether Titus took the letter on his visit or it was sent on after the return of Timothy is not perfectly clear. Probably Timothy returned to Ephesus from Corinth shortly after the epistle was sent on, possibly by the committee who returned to Corinth (1Co_16:17), for Timothy and Erastus were sent on from Ephesus to Macedonia before the outbreak at the hands of Demetrius (Act_19:22). Apparently Timothy had not fully succeeded in reconciling the factions in Corinth for Paul dispatched Titus who was to meet him at Troas as he went on to Macedonia. Paul’s hurried departure from Ephesus (Act_20:1) took him to Troas before Titus arrived and Paul’s impatience there brought him to Macedonia where he did meet Titus on his return from Corinth (2Co_2:12.).

It is clear therefore that Paul wrote what we call I Corinthians in a disturbed state of mind. He had founded the church there, had spent two years there (Acts 18), and took pardonable pride in his work there as a wise architect (1Co_3:10) for he had built the church on Christ as the foundation. He was anxious that his work should abide. It is plain that the disturbances in the church in Corinth were fomented from without by the Judaizers whom Paul had defeated at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:1-35; Gal_2:1-10). They were overwhelmed there, but renewed their attacks in Antioch (Gal_2:11-21). Henceforth throughout the second mission tour they are a disturbing element in Galatia, in Corinth, in Jerusalem. While Paul is winning the Gentiles in the Roman Empire to Christ, these Judaizers are trying to win Paul’s converts to Judaism. Nowhere do we see the conflict at so white a heat as in Corinth. Paul finally will expose them with withering sarcasm (2 Corinthians 10-13) as Jesus did the Pharisees in Matthew 23 on that last day in the temple. Factional strife, immorality, perverted ideas about marriage, spiritual gifts, and the resurrection, these complicated problems are a vivid picture of church life in our cities today. The discussion of them shows Paul’s many-sidedness and also the powerful grasp that he has upon the realities of the gospel. Questions of casuistry are faced fairly and serious ethical issues are met squarely. But along with the treatment of these vexed matters Paul sings the noblest song of the ages on love (chapter 1Co_13:1-13) and writes the classic discussion on the resurrection (chapter 1 Corinthians 15). If one knows clearly and fully the Corinthian Epistles and Paul’s dealings with Corinth, he has an understanding of a large section of his life and ministry. No church caused him more anxiety than did Corinth (2Co_11:28).

JFB: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

The AUTHENTICITY of this Epistle is attested by CLEMENT OF ROME [First Epistle to the Corinthians, 47], POLYCARP [Epistle to the Philippians, 11], and IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 4.27.3]. The city to which it was sent was famed for its wealth and commerce, which were chiefly due to its situation between the Ionian and Ægean Seas on the isthmus connecting the Peloponese with Greece. In Paul's time it was the capital of the province Achaia and the seat of the Roman proconsul (Act 18:12). The state of morals in it was notorious for debauchery, even in the profligate heathen world; so much so that "to Corinthianize" was a proverbial phrase for "to play the wanton"; hence arose dangers to the purity of the Christian Church at Corinth. That Church was founded by Paul on his first visit (Acts 18:1-17).

He had been the instrument of converting many Gentiles (1Co 12:2), and some Jews (Act 18:8), notwithstanding the vehement opposition of the countrymen of the latter (Act 18:5), during the year and a half in which he sojourned there. The converts were chiefly of the humbler classes (1Co 1:26, &c.). Crispus (1Co 1:14; Act 18:8), Erastus, and Gaius (Caius) were, however, men of rank (Rom 16:23). A variety of classes is also implied in 1Co 11:22. The risk of contamination by contact with the surrounding corruptions, and the temptation to a craving for Greek philosophy and rhetoric (which Apollos' eloquent style rather tended to foster, Act 18:24, &c.) in contrast to Paul's simple preaching of Christ crucified (1Co 2:1, &c.), as well as the opposition of certain teachers to him, naturally caused him anxiety. Emissaries from the Judaizers of Palestine boasted of "letters of commendation" from Jerusalem, the metropolis of the faith. They did not, it is true, insist on circumcision in refined Corinth, where the attempt would have been hopeless, as they did among the simpler people of Galatia; but they attacked the apostolic authority of Paul (1Co 9:1-2; 2Co 10:1, 2Co 10:7-8), some of them declaring themselves followers of Cephas, the chief apostle, others boasting that they belonged to Christ Himself (1Co 1:12; 2Co 10:7), while they haughtily repudiated all subordinate teaching. Those persons gave out themselves for apostles (2Co 11:5, 2Co 11:13). The ground taken by them was that Paul was not one of the Twelve, and not an eye-witness of the Gospel facts, and durst not prove his apostleship by claiming sustenance from the Christian Church. Another section avowed themselves followers of Paul himself, but did so in a party spirit, exalting the minister rather than Christ. The followers of Apollos, again, unduly prized his Alexandrian learning and eloquence, to the disparagement of the apostle, who studiously avoided any deviation from Christian simplicity (1Co 2:1-5). In some of this last philosophizing party there may have arisen the Antinomian tendency which tried to defend theoretically their own practical immorality: hence their denial of the future resurrection, and their adoption of the Epicurean motto, prevalent in heathen Corinth, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die" (1Co 15:32). Hence, perhaps, arose their connivance at the incestuous intercourse kept up by one of the so-called Christian body with his stepmother during his father's life. The household of Chloe informed Paul of many other evils: such as contentions, divisions, and lawsuits brought against brethren in heathen law courts by professing Christians; the abuse of their spiritual gifts into occasions of display and fanaticism; the interruption of public worship by simultaneous and disorderly ministrations, and decorum violated by women speaking unveiled (contrary to Oriental usage), and so usurping the office of men, and even the holy communion desecrated by greediness and revelling on the part of the communicants. Other messengers, also, came from Corinth, consulting him on the subject of (1) the controversy about meats offered to idols; (2) the disputes about celibacy and marriage; (3) the due exercise of spiritual gifts in public worship; (4) the best mode of making the collection which he had requested for the saints at Jerusalem (1Co 16:1, &c.). Such were the circumstances which called forth the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the most varied in its topics of all the Epistles.

In 1Co 5:9, "I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to company with fornicators," it is implied that Paul had written a previous letter to the Corinthians (now lost). Probably in it he had also enjoined them to make a contribution for the poor saints at Jerusalem, whereupon they seem to have asked directions as to the mode of doing so, to which he now replies (1Co 16:2). It also probably announced his intention of visiting them on way to Macedonia, and again on his return from Macedonia (2Co 1:15-16), which purpose he changed hearing the unfavorable report from Chloe's household (1Co 16:5-7), for which he was charged with (2Co 1:17). In the first Epistle which we have, the subject of fornication is alluded to only in a way, as if he were rather replying to an excuse set up after rebuke in the matter, than introducing for the first time [ALFORD]. Preceding this former letter, he seems to have paid a second visit to Corinth. For in 2Co 12:4; 2Co 13:1, he speaks of his intention of paying them a third visit, implying he had already twice visited them. See on 2Co 2:1; 2Co 13:2; also see on 2Co 1:15; 2Co 1:16. It is hardly likely that during his three years' sojourn at Ephesus he would have failed to revisit his Corinthian converts, which he could so readily do by sea, there being constant maritime intercourse between the two cities. This second visit was probably a short one (compare 1Co 16:7); and attended with pain and humiliation (2Co 2:1; 2Co 12:21), occasioned by the scandalous conduct of so many of his own converts. His milder censures having then failed to produce reformation, he wrote briefly directing them "not to company with fornicators." On their misapprehending this injunction, he explained it more fully in the Epistle, the first of the two extant (1Co 5:9, 1Co 5:12). That the second visit is not mentioned in Acts is no objection to its having really taken place, as that book is fragmentary and omits other leading incidents in Paul's life; for example, his visit to Arabia, Syria, and Cilicia (Gal 1:17-21).

The PLACE OF WRITING is fixed to be Ephesus (1Co 16:8). The subscription in English Version, "From Philippi," has no authority whatever, and probably arose from a mistaken translation of 1Co 16:5, "For I am passing through Macedonia." At the time of writing Paul implies (1Co 16:8) that he intended to leave Ephesus after Pentecost of that year. He really did leave it about Pentecost (A.D. 57). Compare Act 19:20. The allusion to Passover imagery in connection with our Christian Passover, Easter (1Co 5:7), makes it likely that the season was about Easter. Thus the date of the Epistle is fixed with tolerable accuracy, about Easter, certainly before Pentecost, in the third year of his residence at Ephesus, A.D. 57. For other arguments, see CONYBEARE and HOWSON'S Life and Epistles of St. Paul.

The Epistle is written in the name of Sosthenes "[our] brother." BIRKS supposes he is the same as the Sosthenes, Act 18:17, who, he thinks, was converted subsequently to that occurrence. He bears no part in the Epistle itself, the apostle in the very next verses (1Co 1:4, &c.) using the first person: so Timothy is introduced, 2Co 1:1. The bearers of the Epistle were probably Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (see the subscription, 1Co 16:24), whom he mentions (1Co 16:17-18) as with him then, but who he implies are about to return back to Corinth; and therefore he commends them to the regard of the Corinthians.

JFB: 1 Corinthians (Outline)

• THE INSCRIPTION; THANKSGIVING FOR THE SPIRITUAL STATE OF THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH; REPROOF OF PARTY DIVISIONS: HIS OWN METHOD OF PREACHING ONLY CHRIST. (1Co. 1:1-31)
• PAUL'S SUBJECT OF PREACHING, CHRIST CRUCIFIED, NOT IN WORLDLY, BUT IN HEAVENLY, WISDOM AMONG THE PERFECT. (1Co. 2:1-16)
• PAUL COULD NOT SPEAK TO THEM OF DEEP SPIRITUAL TRUTHS, AS THEY WERE CARNAL, CONTENDING FOR THEIR SEVERAL TEACHERS; THESE ARE NOTHING BUT WORKERS FOR GOD, TO WHOM THEY MUST GIVE ACCOUNT IN THE DAY OF FIERY JUDGMENT. THE HEARERS ARE GOD'S TEMPLE, WHICH THEY MUST NOT DEFILE BY CONTENTIONS FOR TEACHERS, WHO, AS WELL AS ALL THINGS, ARE THEIRS, BEING CHRIST'S. (1Co. 3:1-23)
• TRUE VIEW OF MINISTERS: THE JUDGMENT IS NOT TO BE FORESTALLED; MEANWHILE THE APOSTLES' LOW STATE CONTRASTS WITH THE CORINTHIANS' PARTY PRIDE, NOT THAT PAUL WOULD SHAME THEM, BUT AS A FATHER WARN THEM; FOR WHICH END HE SENT TIMOTHY, AND WILL SOON COME HIMSELF. (1Co. 4:1-21)
• THE INCESTUOUS PERSON AT CORINTH: THE CORINTHIANS REPROVED FOR CONNIVANCE, AND WARNED TO PURGE OUT THE BAD LEAVEN. QUALIFICATION OF HIS FORMER COMMAND AS TO ASSOCIATION WITH SINNERS OF THE WORLD. (1Co 5:1-13)
• LITIGATION OF CHRISTIANS IN HEATHEN COURTS CENSURED: ITS VERY EXISTENCE BETRAYS A WRONG SPIRIT: BETTER TO BEAR WRONG NOW, AND HEREAFTER THE DOERS OF WRONG SHALL BE SHUT OUT OF HEAVEN. (1Co 6:1-11)
• REFUTATION OF THE ANTINOMIAN DEFENSE OF FORNICATION AS IF IT WAS LAWFUL BECAUSE MEATS ARE SO. (1Co 6:12-20)
• REPLY TO THEIR INQUIRIES AS TO MARRIAGE; THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE IN OTHER THINGS IS, ABIDE IN YOUR STATION, FOR THE TIME IS SHORT. (1Co. 7:1-40) The Corinthians in their letter had probably asked questions which tended to disparage marriage, and had implied that it was better to break it off when contracted with an unbeliever.
• ON PARTAKING OF MEATS OFFERED TO IDOLS. (1Co 8:1-13) Though to those knowing that an idol has no existence, the question of eating meats offered to idols (referred to in the letter of the Corinthians, compare 1Co 7:1) might seem unimportant, it is not so with some, and the infirmities of such should be respected. The portions of the victims not offered on the altars belonged partly to the priests, partly to the offerers; and were eaten at feasts in the temples and in private houses and were often sold in the markets; so that Christians were constantly exposed to the temptation of receiving them, which was forbidden (Num 25:2; Psa 106:28). The apostles forbade it in their decree issued from Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29; Act 21:25); but Paul does not allude here to that decree, as he rests his precepts rather on his own independent apostolic authority.
• HE CONFIRMS HIS TEACHING AS TO NOT PUTTING A STUMBLING-BLOCK IN A BROTHER'S WAY (1Co 8:13) BY HIS OWN EXAMPLE IN NOT USING HIS UNDOUBTED RIGHTS AS AN APOSTLE, SO AS TO WIN MEN TO CHRIST. (1Co. 9:1-27)
• DANGER OF FELLOWSHIP WITH IDOLATRY ILLUSTRATED IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL: SUCH FELLOWSHIP INCOMPATIBLE WITH FELLOWSHIP IN THE LORD'S SUPPER. EVEN LAWFUL THINGS ARE TO BE FORBORNE, SO AS NOT TO HURT WEAK BRETHREN. (1Co. 10:1-33)
• CENSURE ON DISORDERS IN THEIR ASSEMBLIES: THEIR WOMEN NOT BEING VEILED, AND ABUSES AT THE LOVE-FEASTS. (1Co. 11:1-34) Rather belonging to the end of the tenth chapter, than to this chapter.
• THE USE AND THE ABUSE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS, ESPECIALLY PROPHESYING AND TONGUES. (1Co. 12:1-31)
• CHARITY OR LOVE SUPERIOR TO ALL GIFTS. (1Co 13:1-13)
• SUPERIORITY OF PROPHECY OVER TONGUES. (1Co. 14:1-25)
• RULES FOR THE EXERCISE OF GIFTS IN THE CONGREGATION. (1Co 14:26-40)
• THE RESURRECTION PROVED AGAINST THE DENIERS OF IT AT CORINTH. (1Co. 15:1-58)
• DIRECTIONS AS TO THE COLLECTION FOR THE JUDEAN CHRISTIANS: PAUL'S FUTURE PLANS: HE COMMENDS TO THEM TIMOTHY, APOLLOS, &C. SALUTATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS. (1Co. 16:1-24)

TSK: 1 Corinthians 10 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

1Co 10:1, The sacraments of the Jews are types of ours; 1Co 10:7, and their punishments, 1Co 10:11. examples for us; 1Co 10:13, We must flee from idolatry; 1Co 10:21, We must not make the Lord’s table the table of devils; 1Co 10:24, and in things indifferent we must have regard of our brethren.

Poole: 1 Corinthians 10 (Chapter Introduction)

CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 10

MHCC: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

The Corinthian church contained some Jews, but more Gentiles, and the apostle had to contend with the superstition of the one, and the sinful conduct of the other. The peace of this church was disturbed by false teachers, who undermined the influence of the apostle. Two parties were the result; one contending earnestly for the Jewish ceremonies, the other indulging in excesses contrary to the gospel, to which they were especially led by the luxury and the sins which prevailed around them. This epistle was written to rebuke some disorderly conduct, of which the apostle had been apprized, and to give advice as to some points whereon his judgment was requested by the Corinthians. Thus the scope was twofold. 1. To apply suitable remedies to the disorders and abuses which prevailed among them. 2. To give satisfactory answers on all the points upon which his advice had been desired. The address, and Christian mildness, yet firmness, with which the apostle writes, and goes on from general truths directly to oppose the errors and evil conduct of the Corinthians, is very remarkable. He states the truth and the will of God, as to various matters, with great force of argument and animation of style.

MHCC: 1 Corinthians 10 (Chapter Introduction)

(1Co 10:1-5) The great privileges, and yet terrible overthrow of the Israelites in the wilderness.

(1Co 10:6-14) Cautions against all idolatrous, and other sinful practices.

(1Co 10:15-22) The partaking in idolatry cannot exist with having communion with Christ.

(1Co 10:23-33) All we do to be to the glory of God, and without offence to the consciences of others.

Matthew Henry: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians

Corinth was a principal city of Greece, in that particular division of it which was called Achaia. It was situated on the isthmus (or neck of land) that joined Peloponnesus to the rest of Greece, on the southern side, and had two ports adjoining, one at the bottom of the Corinthian Gulf, called Lechaeum, not far from the city, whence they traded to Italy and the west, the other at the bottom of the Sinus Saronicus, called Cenchrea, at a more remote distance, whence they traded to Asia. From this situation, it is no wonder that Corinth should be a place of great trade and wealth; and, as affluence is apt to produce luxury of all kinds, neither is it to be wondered at if a place so famous for wealth and arts should be infamous for vice. It was in a particular manner noted for fornication, insomuch that a Corinthian woman was a proverbial phrase for a strumpet, and korinthiazein , korinthiasesthai - to play the Corinthian, is to play the whore, or indulge whorish inclinations. Yet in this lewd city did Paul, by the blessing of God on his labours, plant and raise a Christian church, chiefly among the Gentiles, as seems very probable from the history of this matter, Acts 18:1-18, compared with some passages in this epistle, particularly 1Co 12:2, where the apostle tells them, You know that you wee Gentiles, carried away to those dumb idols even as you were led, though it is not improbable that many Jewish converts might be also among them, for we are told that Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his house, Act 18:8. He continued in this city nearly two years, as is plain from Act 18:11 and Act 18:18 compared, and laboured with great success, being encouraged by a divine vision assuring him God had much people in that city, Act 18:9, Act 18:10. Nor did he use to stay long in a place where his ministry met not with acceptance and success.

Some time after he left them he wrote this epistle to them, to water what he had planted and rectify some gross disorders which during his absence had been introduced, partly from the interest some false teacher or teachers had obtained amongst them, and partly from the leaven of their old maxims and manners, that had not been thoroughly purged out by the Christian principles they had entertained. And it is but too visible how much their wealth had helped to corrupt their manners, from the several faults for which the apostle reprehends them. Pride, avarice, luxury, lust (the natural offspring of a carnal and corrupt mind), are all fed and prompted by outward affluence. And with all these either the body of this people or some particular persons among them are here charged by the apostle. Their pride discovered itself in their parties and factions, and the notorious disorders they committed in the exercise of their spiritual gifts. And this vice was not wholly fed by their wealth, but by the insight they had into the Greek learning and philosophy. Some of the ancients tell us that the city abounded with rhetoricians and philosophers. And these were men naturally vain, full of self-conceit, and apt to despise the plain doctrine of the gospel, because it did not feed the curiosity of an inquisitive and disputing temper, nor please the ear with artful speeches and a flow of fine words. Their avarice was manifest in their law-suits and litigations about meum - mine, and tuum - thine, before heathen judges. Their luxury appeared in more instances than one, in their dress, in their debauching themselves even at the Lord's table, when the rich, who were most faulty on this account, were guilty also of a very proud and criminal contempt of their poor brethren. Their lust broke out in a most flagrant and infamous instance, such as had not been named among the Gentiles, not spoken of without detestation - that a man should have his father's wife, either as his wife, or so as to commit fornication with her. This indeed seems to be the fault of a particular person; but the whole church were to blame that they had his crime in no greater abhorrence, that they could endure one of such very corrupt morals and of so flagitious a behaviour among them. But their participation in his sin was yet greater, if, as some of the ancients tell us, they were puffed up on behalf of the great learning and eloquence of this incestuous person. And it is plain from other passages of the epistle that they were not so entirely free from their former lewd inclinations as not to need very strict cautions and strong arguments against fornication: see 1Co 6:9-20. The pride of their learning had also carried many of them so far as to disbelieve or dispute against the doctrine of the resurrection. It is not improbable that they treated this question problematically, as they did many questions in philosophy, and tried their skill by arguing it pro and con.

It is manifest from this state of things that there was much that deserved reprehension, and needed correction, in this church. And the apostle, under the direction and influence of the Holy Spirit, sets himself to do both with all wisdom and faithfulness, and with a due mixture of tenderness and authority, as became one in so elevated and important a station in the church. After a short introduction at the beginning of the epistle, he first blames them for their discord and factions, enters into the origin and source of them, shows them how much pride and vanity, and the affectation of science, and learning, and eloquence, flattered by false teachers, contributed to the scandalous schism; and prescribes humility, and submission to divine instruction, the teaching of God by his Spirit, both by external revelation and internal illumination, as a remedy for the evils that abounded amongst them. He shows them the vanity of their pretended science and eloquence on many accounts. This he does through the first four chapters. In the fifth he treats of the case of the incestuous person, and orders him to be put out from among them. Nor is what the ancients say improbable, that this incestuous person was a man in great esteem, and head of one party at least among them. The apostle seems to tax them with being puffed up on his account, 1Co 5:2. In the sixth chapter he blames them for their law-suits, carried on before heathen judges, when their disputes about property should have been amicably determined amongst themselves, and in the close of the chapter warns them against the sin of fornication, and urges his caution with a variety of arguments. In the seventh chapter he gives advice upon a case of conscience, which some of that church had proposed to him in an epistle, about marriage, and shows it to be appointed of God as a remedy against fornication, that the ties of it were not dissolved, though a husband or wife continued a heathen, when the other became a Christian; and, in short, that Christianity made no change in men's civil states and relations. He gives also some directions here about virgins, in answer, as is probable, to the Corinthians' enquiries. In the eighth he directs them about meats offered to idols, and cautions them against abusing their Christian liberty. From this he also takes occasion, in the ninth chapter, to expatiate a little on his own conduct upon this head of liberty. For, though he might have insisted on a maintenance from the churches where he ministered, he waived this demand, that he might make the gospel of Christ without charge, and did in other things comply with and suit himself to the tempers and circumstances of those among whom he laboured, for their good. In the tenth chapter he dissuades them, from the example of the Jews, against having communion with idolaters, by eating of their sacrifices, inasmuch as they could not be at once partakers of the Lord's table and the table of devils, though they were not bound to enquire concerning meat sold in the shambles, or set before them at a feast made by unbelievers, whether it were a part of the idol-sacrifices or no, but were at liberty to eat without asking questions. In the eleventh chapter he gives direction about their habit in public worship, blames them for their gross irregularities and scandalous disorders in receiving the Lord's supper, and solemnly warns them against the abuse of so sacred an institution. In the twelfth chapter he enters on the consideration of spiritual gifts, which were poured forth in great abundance on this church, upon which they were not a little elated. He tells them, in this chapter, that all came from the same original, and were all directed to the same end. They issued from one Spirit, and were intended for the good of the church, and must be abused when they were not made to minister to this purpose. Towards the close he informs them that they were indeed valuable gifts, but he could recommend to them something far more excellent, upon which he breaks out, in the thirteenth chapter, into the commendation and characteristics of charity. And them, in the fourteenth, he directs them how to keep up decency and order in the churches in the use of their spiritual gifts, in which they seem to have been exceedingly irregular, through pride of their gifts and a vanity of showing them. The fifteenth chapter is taken up in confirming and explaining the great doctrine of the resurrection. The last chapter consists of some particular advices and salutations; and thus the epistle closes.

Matthew Henry: 1 Corinthians 10 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter the apostle prosecutes the argument at the close of the last, and, I. Warns the Corinthians against security, by the example of the Jews, who, notwithstanding their profession and privileges, were terribly punished of God for their many sins, their history being left upon record for the admonition of Christians (1Co 10:1-14). II. He resumes his former argument (1Co 8:1-13), about eating things offered to idols; and shows that it was utterly inconsistent with true Christianity, that it was downright gross idolatry, to eat them as things offered to idols; it is having fellowship with devils, which cannot consist with having fellowship with God (1Co 10:15-22). III. He lets them yet know that though they must not eat of things sacrificed to idols as such, and out of any regard to the idol, yet they might buy such flesh in the markets, or eat it at the table of heathen acquaintances, without asking any questions; for that the heathens' abuse of them did not render the creatures of God unfit to be the food of his servants. Yet liberty of this kind must be used with a due regard to weak consciences, and no offence given by it t Jew nor Gentile, nor to the church of God (1Co 10:23 to the end).

Barclay: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL

The Letters Of Paul

There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writercharacter, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227). It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church, and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.

The Difficulty Of Letters

At the same time, there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.

The Ancient Letters

It is a great pity that Paulletters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last forever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paulletters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.

"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.

I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are

going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother.

I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe when I was

in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey

money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things are going fine

with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to

let me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly,

that I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and

because of that I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give

Capito my heartiest greetings, and my brothers and Serenilla and

my friends. I sent you a little picture of myself painted by

Euctemon. My military name is Antonius Maximus, I pray for your

good health. Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimonboy, and

Turbo, Galloniuson." (G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek

Papyri, 36).

Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who will Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paulletters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.

(i) The Greeting: Rom_1:1 ; 1Co_1:1 ; 2Co_1:1 ; Gal_1:1 ; Eph_1:1 ; Phi_1:1 ; Col_1:1-2 ; 1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:1 .

(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: Rom_1:7 ; 1Co_1:3 ; 2Co_1:2 ; Gal_1:3 ; Eph_1:2 ; Phi_1:3 ; Col_1:2 ; 1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:2 .

(iii) The Thanksgiving: Rom_1:8 ; 1Co_1:4 ; 2Co_1:3 ; Eph_1:3 ; Phi_1:3 ; 1Th_1:3 ; 2Th_1:3 .

(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.

(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: Rom 16 ; 1Co_16:19 ; 2Co_13:13 ; Phi_4:21-22 ; Col_4:12-15 ; 1Th_5:26 .

When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paulletters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.

The Immediate Situation

With a very few exceptions, all Paulletters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation.... He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paulletters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.

The Spoken Word

One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added his own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In Rom_16:22 Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end). In 1Co_16:21 Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me." (compare Col_4:18 ; 2Th_3:17 .

This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When Paul composed his letters, he had in his mindeye a vision of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS TO THE CORINTHIANS

The Greatness Of Corinth

A glance at the map will show that Corinth was made for greatness. The southern part of Greece is very nearly an island. On the west the Corinthian Gulf deeply indents the land and on the east the Saronic Gulf. All that is left to join the two parts of Greece together is a little isthmus only four miles across. On that narrow neck of land Corinth stands. Such a position made it inevitable that it should be one of the greatest trading and commercial centres of the ancient world. All traffic from Athens and the north of Greece to Sparta and the Peloponnese had to be routed through Corinth, because it stood on the little neck of land that connected the two.

Not only did the north to south traffic of Greece pass through Corinth of necessity, by far the greater part of the east to west traffic of the Mediterranean passed through her from choice. The extreme southern tip of Greece was known as Cape Malea (now called Cape Matapan). It was dangerous, and to round Cape Malea had much the same sound as to round Cape Horn had in later times. The Greeks had two sayings which showed what they thought of it--"Let him who sails round Malea forget his home," and, "Let him who sails round Malea first make his will."

The consequence was that mariners followed one of two courses. They sailed up the Saronic Gulf, and, if their ships were small enough, dragged them out of the water, set them on rollers, hauled them across the isthmus, and re-launched them on the other side. The isthmus was actually called the Diolkos, the place of dragging across. The idea is the same as that which is contained in the Scottish place name Tarbert, which means a place where the land is so narrow that a boat can be dragged from loch to loch. If that course was not possible because the ship was too large, the cargo was disembarked, carried by porters across the isthmus, and re-embarked on another ship at the other side. This four mile journey across the isthmus, where the Corinth Canal now runs, saved a journey of two hundred and two miles round Cape Malea, the most dangerous cape in the Mediterranean.

It is easy to see how great a commercial city Corinth must have been. The north to south traffic of Greece had no alternative but to pass through her; by far the greater part of the east to west trade of the Mediterranean world chose to pass through her. Round Corinth there clustered three other towns, Lechaeum at the west end of the isthmus, Cenchrea at the east end and Schoenus just a short distance away. Farrar writes, "Objects of luxury soon found their way to the markets which were visited by every nation in the civilized world--Arabian balsam, Phoenician dates, Libyan ivory, Babylonian carpets, Cilician goatsair, Lycaonian wool, Phrygian slaves."

Corinth, as Farrar calls her, was the Vanity Fair of the ancient world. Men called her The Bridge of Greece; one called her The Lounge of Greece. It has been said that if a man stands long enough in Piccadilly Circus he will in the end meet everyone in the country. Corinth was the Piccadilly Circus of the Mediterranean. To add to the concourse which came to it, Corinth was the place where the Isthmian Games were held, which were second only to the Olympics. Corinth was a rich and populous city with one of the greatest commercial trades in the ancient world.

The Wickedness Of Corinth

There was another side to Corinth. She had a reputation for commercial prosperity, but she was also a byword for evil living. The very word korinthiazesthai, to live like a Corinthian, had become a part of the Greek language, and meant to live with drunken and immoral debauchery. The word actually penetrated to the English language, and, in Regency times, a Corinthian was one of the wealthy young bucks who lived in reckless and riotous living. Aelian, the late Greek writer, tells us that if ever a Corinthian was shown upon the stage in a Greek play he was shown drunk. The very name Corinth was synonymous with debauchery and there was one source of evil in the city which was known all over the civilized world. Above the isthmus towered the hill of the Acropolis, and on it stood the great temple of Aphrodite, the goddess of love. To that temple there were attached one thousand priestesses who were sacred prostitutes, and in the evenings they descended from the Acropolis and plied their trade upon the streets of Corinth, until it became a Greek proverb, "It is not every man who can afford a journey to Corinth." In addition to these cruder sins, there flourished far more recondite vices, which had come in with the traders and the sailors from the ends of the earth, until Corinth became not only a synonym for wealth and luxury, drunkenness and debauchery, but also for filth.

The History Of Corinth

The history of Corinth falls into two parts. She was a very ancient city. Thucydides, the Greek historian, claims that it was in Corinth that the first triremes, the Greek battleships, were built. Legend has it that it was in Corinth that the Argo was built, the ship in which Jason sailed the seas, searching for the golden fleece. But in 146 B.C. disaster befell her. The Romans were engaged in conquering the world. When they sought to reduce Greece, Corinth was the leader of the opposition. But the Greeks could not stand against the disciplined Romans, and in 146 B.C. Lucius Mummius, the Roman general, captured Corinth and left her a desolate heap of ruins.

But any place with the geographical situation of Corinth could not remain a devastation. Almost exactly one hundred years later, in 46 B.C. Julius Caesar rebuilt her and she arose from her ruins. Now she became a Roman colony. More, she became a capital city, the metropolis of the Roman province of Achaea, which included practically all Greece.

In those days, which were the days of Paul, her population was very mixed. (i) There were the Roman veterans whom Julius Caesar had settled there. When a Roman soldier had served his time, he was granted the citizenship and was then sent out to some newly-founded city and given a grant of land so that he might become a settler there. These Roman colonies were planted all over the world, and always the backbone of them was the contingent of veteran regular soldiers whose faithful service had won them the citizenship. (ii) When Corinth was rebuilt the merchants came back, for her situation still gave her commercial supremacy. (iii) There were many Jews among the population. The rebuilt city offered them commercial opportunities which they were not slow to take. (iv) There was a sprinkling of Phoenicians and Phrygians and people from the east, with their exotic customs and their hysterical ways. Farrar speaks of "this mongrel and heterogeneous population of Greek adventurers and Roman bourgeois, with a tainting infusion of Phoenicians; this mass of Jews, ex-soldiers, philosophers, merchants, sailors, freedmen, slaves, trades-people, hucksters and agents of every form of vice." He characterizes her as a colony "without aristocracy, without traditions and without well-established citizens."

Remember the background of Corinth, remember its name for wealth and luxury, for drunkenness and immorality and vice, and then read 1Co_6:9-10 .

Are you not aware that the unrighteous will not inherit the

Kingdom of God? Make no mistake--neither fornicators, nor

idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sensualists, nor homosexuals, nor

thieves, nor rapacious men, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor

robbers shall inherit the Kingdom of God--and such were some of

you.

In this hotbed of vice, in the most unlikely place in all the Greek world, some of Paulgreatest work was done, and some of the mightiest triumphs of Christianity were won.

Paul In Corinth

Paul stayed longer in Corinth than in any other city, with the single exception of Ephesus. He had left Macedonia with his life in peril and had crossed over to Athens. There he had had little success and had gone on to Corinth, and he remained there for eighteen months. We realize how little we really know of his work when we see that the whole story of that eighteen months is compressed by Luke into 17 verses (Act_18:1-17 ).

When Paul arrived in Corinth he took up residence with Aquila and Prisca. He preached in the synagogue with great success. With the arrival of Timothy and Silas from Macedonia, he redoubled his efforts, but the Jews were so stubbornly hostile that he had to leave the synagogue. He took up his residence with one Justus who lived next door to the synagogue. His most notable convert was Crispus, who was actually the ruler of the synagogue, and amongst the general public he had good success.

In the year A.D. 52 there came to Corinth as its new governor a Roman called Gallio. He was famous for his charm and gentleness. The Jews tried to take advantage of his newness and good nature and brought Paul to trial before him on a charge of teaching contrary to their law. But Gallio, with impartial Roman justice, refused to have anything to do with the case or to take any action. So Paul completed his work in Corinth and moved on to Syria.

The Correspondence With Corinth

It was when he was in Ephesus in the year A.D. 55 that Paul, learning that things were not all well in Corinth, wrote to the church there. There is every possibility that the Corinthian correspondence as we have it is out of order. We must remember that it was not until A.D. 90 or thereby that Paulcorrespondence was collected. In many churches it must have existed only on scraps of papyrus and the putting it together would be a problem: and it seems that, when the Corinthian letters were collected, they were not all discovered and were not arranged in the right order. Let us see if we can reconstruct what happened.

(i) There was a letter which preceded 1 Corinthians. In 1Co_5:9 Paul writes, "I wrote you a letter not to associate with immoral men." This obviously refers to some previous letter. Some scholars believe that letter is lost without trace. Others think it is contained in 2Co_6:14-18 and 2Co_7:1 . Certainly that passage suits what Paul said he wrote about. It occurs rather awkwardly in its context, and, if we take it out and read straight on from 2Co_6:13 to 2Co_7:2 , we get excellent sense and connection. Scholars call this letter The Previous Letter. (In the original letters there were no chapter or verse divisions. The chapters were not divided up until the thirteenth century and the verses not till the sixteenth, and because of that the arranging of the collection of letters would be much more difficult).

(ii) News came to Paul from various sources of trouble at Corinth. (a) News came from those who were of the household of Chloe (1Co_1:11 ). They brought news of the contentions with which the church was torn. (b) News came with the visit of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus to Ephesus. (1Co_16:17 ). By personal contact they were able to fill up the gaps in Paulinformation. (c) News came in a letter in which the Corinthian Church had asked Paul guidance on various problems. In 1Co_7:1 Paul begins, "Concerning the matters about which you wrote..." In answer to all this information Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and despatched it to Corinth apparently by the hand of Timothy (1Co_4:17 ).

(iii) The result of the letter was that things became worse than ever, and, although we have no direct record of it, we can deduce that Paul paid a personal visit to Corinth. In 2Co_12:14 he writes, "The third time I am ready to come to you." In 2Co_13:1-2 , he says again that he is coming to them for the third time. Now, if there was a third time, there must have been a second time. We have the record of only one visit, whose story is told in Act_18:1-17 . We have no record at all of the second, but Corinth was only two or three daysailing from Ephesus.

(iv) The visit did no good at all. Matters were only exacerbated and the result was an exceedingly severe letter. We learn about that letter from certain passages in 2 Corinthians. In 2Co_2:4 Paul writes, "I wrote to you out of much affliction and anguish of heart and with many tears." In 2Co_7:8 he writes, "For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it though I did regret it; for I see that that letter has grieved you, though only for a while." It was a letter which was the product of anguish of mind, a letter so severe that Paul was almost sorry that he ever sent it.

Scholars call this The Severe Letter. Have we got it? It obviously cannot be I Corinthians, because it is not a tear-stained and anguished letter. When Paul wrote it, it is clear enough that things were under control. Now if we read through 2 Corinthians we find an odd circumstance. In 2Cor 1-9 everything is made up, there is complete reconciliation and all are friends again; but at 2Cor 10 comes the strangest break. 2Cor 10-13 are the most heartbroken cry Paul ever wrote. They show that he has been hurt and insulted as he never was before or afterwards by any church. His appearance, his speech, his apostleship, his honesty have all been under attack.

Most scholars believe that 2Cor 10-13 are the severe letter, and that they have become misplaced when Paulletters were put together. If we want the real chronological course of Paulcorrespondence with Corinth, we really ought to read 2Cor 10-13 before 2Cor 1-9. We do know that this letter was sent off with Titus. (2Co_2:13 ; 2Co_7:13 ).

(v) Paul was worried about this letter. He could not wait until Titus came back with an answer, so he set out to meet him (2Co_2:13 ; 2Co_7:5 , 2Co_7:13 ). Somewhere in Macedonia he met him and learned that all was well, and, probably at Philippi, he sat down and wrote 2Cor 1-9, the letter of reconciliation.

Stalker has said that the letters of Paul take the roof off the early churches and let us see what went on inside. Of none of them is that truer than the letters to Corinth. Here we see what "the care of all the churches" must have meant to Paul. Here we see the heart-breaks and the joys. Here we see Paul, the shepherd of his flock, bearing the sorrows and the problems of his people on his heart.

The Corinthian Correspondence

Before we read the letters in detail let us set down the progress of the Corinthian correspondence in tabular form.

(i) The Previous Letter, which may be contained in 2Co_6:14-18 and 2Co_7:1 .

(ii) The arrival of Chloepeople, of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus, and of the letter to Paul from the Corinthian Church.

(iii) 1 Corinthians is written in reply and is despatched with Timothy.

(iv) The situation grows worse and Paul pays a personal visit to Corinth, which is so complete a failure that it almost breaks his heart.

(v) The consequence is The Severe Letter, which is almost certainly contained in 2Cor 10-13, and which was despatched with Titus.

(vi) Unable to wait for an answer, Paul sets out to meet Titus. He meets him in Macedonia, learns that all is well and, probably from Philippi, writes 2Cor 1-9, The Letter of Reconciliation.

The first four chapters of 1 Corinthians deal with the divided state of the Church of God at Corinth. Instead of being a unity in Christ it was split into sects and parties, who had attached themselves to the names of various leaders and teachers. It is Paulteaching that these divisions had emerged because the Corinthians thought too much about human wisdom and knowledge and too little about the sheer grace of God. In fact, for all their so-called wisdom, they are really in a state of immaturity. They think that they are wise men, but really they are no better than babies.

FURTHER READING

1 Corinthians

F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (NCB; E)

J. Hering, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (translated by A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock)

J. Moffatt, 1 Corinthians (MC; E)

A. Robertson and A. Plummer, 1 Corinthians (ICC; G)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

NCB: New Century Bible

TC: Tyndale Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: 1 Corinthians 10 (Chapter Introduction)

The Peril Of Over-Confidence (1Co_10:1-13)

The Sacramental Obligation (1Co_10:14-22)

The Limits Of Christian Freedom (1Co_10:23-33; 1Co_11:1)

Constable: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical Background

Corinth had a long history stretching back into the Bronze Age (before 1200 B.C.).¹ In Paul's day it was a Roman colony and the capital of the province of Achaia. The population consisted of Roman citizens who had migrated from Italy, native Greeks, Jews (Acts 18:4), and other people from various places who chose to settle there.

The ancient city of Corinth enjoyed an ideal situation as a commercial center. It stood just southwest of the Isthmus of Corinth, the land bridge that connected Northern Greece and Southern Greece, the Peloponnesus. This site made Corinth a crossroads for trade by land, north and south, as well as by sea, east and west. In Paul's day large ships would transfer their cargoes to land vehicles that would cart them from the Corinthian Gulf to the Saronic Gulf, or vice versa. There stevedores would reload them onto other ships. If a ship was small enough, they would drag the whole vessel across the four and a half mile isthmus from one gulf to the other. This did away with the long voyage around the Peloponnesus. Later the Greeks cut a canal linking these two gulfs.²

Corinth's strategic location brought commerce and all that goes with it to its populace: wealth, a steady stream of travelers and merchants, and vice. In Paul's day many of the pagan religions included prostitution as part of the worship of their god or goddess. Consequently fornication flourished in Corinth.

"Old Corinth had gained such a reputation for sexual vice that Aristophanes (ca. 450-385 B.C.) coined the verb korinthiazo (= to act like a Corinthian, i.e., to commit fornication)."³

"The old city had been the most licentious city in Greece, and perhaps the most licentious city in the Empire."⁴

The most notorious shrine was the temple of Aphrodite that stood on top of an approximately 1,900 foot high mountain just south of the city, the Acrocorinthus. Hundreds of female slaves served the men who "worshipped" there.⁵ Other major deities honored in Corinth included Melicertes, the patron of seafarers, and Poseidon, the sea god.

"All of this evidence together suggests that Paul's Corinth was at once the New York, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas of the ancient world."⁶

There were several other local sites of importance to the student of 1 Corinthians. These included the bema (judgment seat or platform), the place where judges tried important cases including Paul's (Acts 18:12).⁷ Cenchrea, the port of Corinth on the Saronic Gulf of the Aegean Sea, was the town from which Paul set sail for Ephesus during his second missionary journey (Acts 18:18). Isthmia was another little town east of Corinth, just north of Cenchrea, that hosted the Isthmian Games every two or three years. These athletic contests were important in the life of the Greeks, and Paul referred to them in this epistle (9:24-27).

Paul had arrived in Corinth first from Athens, which lay to the east. There he preached the gospel and planted a church. There, too, he met Priscilla and Aquila, Jews who had recently left Rome. After local Jewish officials expelled the church from the synagogue, it met in a large house next door that Titius Justus owned. Paul ministered in Corinth for 18 months, probably in 51 and 52 A.D. He left taking Priscilla and Aquila with him to Ephesus. Paul then proceeded on to Syrian Antioch by way of Caesarea.

Returning to Ephesus on his third journey Paul made that city his base of operations for almost three years (53-56 A.D.). There he heard disquieting news about immorality in the Corinthian church. Therefore he wrote a letter urging the believers not to tolerate such conduct in their midst. Paul referred to this letter as his "former letter" (1 Cor. 5:9). It is not extant today.

Then he heard from "Chloe's people" that factions had developed in the church. He also received a letter from the church in Corinth requesting his guidance in certain matters. These matters were marriage, divorce, food offered to idols, the exercise of spiritual gifts in the church, and the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem. Those who carried this letter also reported other disturbing conditions in the church. These conditions were the condoning rather than disciplining of immorality, Christians suing one another in the pagan courts, and disorders in their church meetings. These factors led Paul to compose another letter, "1 Corinthians." In it he dealt with the problem of factions, promised to visit them soon, and said he was sending Timothy to Corinth (chs. 1-4). Paul added his responses to the Corinthians' questions to what he had already written. He dealt next with the oral reports (chs. 5-6) and then with the questions that the Corinthian believers had written to him (chs. 7-16). He evidently sent this epistle from Ephesus by trusted messengers in the late winter or early spring of 56 A.D. (cf. 16:8).

It seems that a conflict had developed between the Corinthian church and its founder. There was internal strife in the church, as the epistle makes clear. However the larger problem seems to have been that some in the community were leading the church into a view of things that was contrary to that of Paul. This resulted in a questioning of Paul's authority and his gospel. The key issue between Paul and the Corinthians was what it means to be "spiritual."⁸

"It [1 Corinthians] is not the fullest and clearest statement of Paul's Gospel; for this we must turn to Romans. Nor is it the letter that shows Paul's own heart most clearly, for in this respect it is surpassed by 2 Corinthians, and perhaps by other epistles too. But it has the great value of showing theology at work, theology being used as it was intended to be used, in the criticism and establishing of persons, institutions, practices, and ideas."⁹

Paul's Corinthian Contacts
Paul's founding visit	His "former letter"	The Corin-thians' letter to him	First Corin-thians	Paul's "painful visit"	His "severe letter"	Second Corin-thians	Paul's antici-pated visit

Message¹⁰

A phrase in 1:2 suggests the theme of this great epistle. That phrase is "the church of God which is at Corinth." Two entities are in view in this phrase and these are the two entities with which the whole epistle deals. They are the church of God and the city of Corinth. The church of God is a community of people who share the life of God, are under the governing will of God, and cooperate in the work of God. The city of Corinth was ignorant of the life of God, governed by self-will, and antagonistic to the purposes of God. These two entities stand in vivid contrast to one another and account for the conflict we find in this epistle.

The church of God in view in this epistle is not the universal church but the local church. These two churches are really not that different from one another. The local church is the micro form of the universal church. Moreover the universal church is the macro form of the local church. What is true of one is true of the other. Whatever we find in a local church exists on a larger scale in the universal church. Whatever we find in one local church exists in many local churches. Remember that the New Testament consistently speaks of the church as people, not buildings. The Apostle Paul addressed these people as believers because that is what they were. Today there may be quite a few unsaved people in a local church's membership. This was not the case in the first century. Believers composed local churches. They shared the life of God because the Holy Spirit indwelt them. They had submitted to God's rule over them to some extent. They were people whom God had commissioned to carry the gospel to every creature. We need to bear these things in mind as we read about the church of God in Corinth.

The city of Corinth is the other entity of primary importance in our grasping the major significance of this epistle. What characterizes the world generally marked Corinth. In the first century when other people described a person as a Corinthian they were implying that lust, lasciviousness, and luxury characterized that one. These were the marks of Corinth. Corinth as a city was ignorant of the true God, entirely self-governing as a Roman colony, and self-centered in her world. These traits marked the lives of individual unbelievers in Corinth as well. The city was going in the opposite direction from the direction God had called the church to go.

The atmosphere of this epistle is Paul's concept of the responsibilities of the church in the city. The apostle articulated this underlying emphasis in 1:9. Fellowship involves both privilege and responsibility. On the one hand, all God's resources are at our disposal. On the other hand, all our resources should be at His disposal as well. The church in any place has a debt to the people who live there to proclaim the gospel to them (Rom. 1:14-16). Paul wrote this whole letter out of an underlying sense of the church's responsibility for the city where it existed.

The church in Corinth was struggling to discharge its debt. It was failing in some very important areas: in readiness, in courage, and in conviction to declare the gospel. The Corinthian church was a carnal church. However, its carnality, as big a problem as that was, was only part of a larger problem. The bigger problem was its failure to carry out its God-given purpose in the city, namely to proclaim a powerful spiritual message to the city. The Christians could not fulfill their purpose unless they dealt with their carnality. Why is carnality wrong? It is wrong because it keeps us from fulfilling the purpose for which God has left us on this planet.

In this letter we discover the causes of the church's failure. Another major emphasis is the secrets of the church's success. On the one hand, we find correctives of carnality. On the other, we have construction of spirituality. Let's consider the causes of failure first.

The first cause of failure was the fact that the spirit of the city had invaded the church as a virus. Every evil thing in the church to which Paul referred was prevalent in Corinth. Three things merit particular mention.

One of the symptoms of Corinthian cultural influence was intellectual freedom. There was much interest in intellectual speculation in Corinth as there was in its neighbor city of Athens. The phrase "Corinthian words" was a synonym for rhetoric in Paul's day. Corinth glorified human wisdom. The Corinthians discussed and debated all sorts of opinions. Each intellectual leader had his group of disciples. Discussion of every subject under the sun prevailed with great diversity of opinion. Unfortunately this spirit had invaded the church. There was a veneration of human wisdom among the Christians. They had chosen their own Christian leaders whom they followed as disciples (ch. 1). Intellectual restlessness prevailed in the church as well as in the city. The believers sampled Christian teaching as the general populace dabbled in philosophical argumentation. This extended to such fundamental doctrines as the Resurrection (ch. 15).

Another evidence that the city had invaded the church was the moral laxity that prevailed. Intellectual permissiveness led to the lowering of moral standards. When people view any idea as legitimate, there are few moral absolutes. The worship of Aphrodite on the hill behind the city was extremely immoral, but the unsaved citizens viewed this worship as perfectly acceptable. "Live and let live" was their motto. Regrettably some Corinthians in the church were viewing morals in the same way (ch. 5).

A third mark of the city's effect on the church was personal selfishness. In the city every person did what was right in his own eyes. The result was there was very little concern for other people and their welfare. One of the evidences of this attitude in the church was the Christians' behavior in their meetings. They were not sharing their food with one another (ch. 11). They were also interrupting speakers in the meetings rather than waiting for the speaker to finish what he had to say (ch. 14). Where edification and order should have prevailed, self-glorification and chaos reigned.

These were only symptoms of a deeper problem. The real root issue was that the church had failed to recognize its uniqueness. The Christians had not grasped and retained some central truths the apostles had taught them that identified the essence of their Christianity. Paul reminded them of these things in this epistle.

They had forgotten the central importance of the message of the Cross of Christ. This was a message not subject to debate. It rested on eyewitness testimony and divine revelation, not human speculation. Christians should unite around this message, share a common commitment to it, and make it the subject of their proclamation. We should appreciate the unity of the body of Christ while at the same time glorying in the diversity of its leaders.

The Corinthians had also forgotten the central importance of the power of the resurrection of Christ. The same power that raised Christ from the dead is at work in Christians to enable us to live morally pure lives. Immorality is not an option for the believer. One of the most outstanding marks of a Christian should be purity. Because Jesus Christ was pure, we should be pure. Because He was pure, we can be pure.

The Corinthians had also forgotten the importance of Christ's command that we love one another. Selfishness had invaded the church. The believers needed to put the welfare of others, their fellow believers and their unsaved neighbors, before their own personal inclinations and preferences.

One of the central revelations of this epistle then is that the church fails to fulfill her function in the city (i.e., culture) when the spirit of the city invades her. The church allows the spirit of the city to invade her when she forgets that God wants her to be unique. The church fails when it adopts the ideas and activities of its environment rather than those revealed for it in God's Word. In view of this, Paul constantly appealed to his readers to be what they were in reality. We are not the people we were. We are saints (1:2). We need to remember that and act accordingly. We do not need to catch the spirit of our age. We need to correct the spirit of our age. When the church catches the spirit of its age, it catches a disease and becomes anemic, weak, and sickly. We avoid catching this spirit by staying spiritually healthy and by constantly imbibing the message of the Cross. We do it by exercising the power of the Resurrection and by keeping others rather than self primary.

I have already begun to hint at the secrets of the church's success, the second major revelation in this epistle.

The church must realize what it is to fulfill its function in the city. We must appreciate our life in Christ.

The life of the church is the life of an organism (ch. 12). It has one Lord whose life we share. It has one Spirit who governs it distributing abilities, assigning positions, and determining results as He sees fit in view of God's overall purpose. The church has one God--not many as in Corinth--whose glory it should determine to promote. To the extent a church realizes these truths, it will be ready to be successful in the sight of God. If it shares the spiritual life of her Lord, submits to the Spirit's leading, and seeks to glorify God, it will succeed. By separating from the spirit of the city, it can help and lift the city.

The law of the church must be the law of love. This is the opposite of the selfish outlook. Paul emphasized the importance of love in chapter 13.

The power of the church is the Resurrection life of Christ (ch. 15). We presently live between two resurrections, the resurrection of Christ and our own resurrection. These resurrections are facts of history. One has already taken place, and the other is yet to come. Between these resurrections the church must fulfill its function in the world. The life that God has given to every believer is life that has power over death. One who overcame death has given it to us. This life is essentially different from what unbelievers possess. It is eternal divine life. With such life we can face any enemy as we serve God. Even the final enemy, death, cannot hold us. It could not hold Him who gave us His life.

Not only must we appreciate the uniqueness of our life as a church to fulfill our function, but we must also fulfill our function by invading the city. Rather than allowing it to invade us, we must invade it to be successful.

We do this by proclaiming that Jesus is Lord. He is the only Lord. The proof of this is His resurrection.

We also do this by rebuking the immorality of the city, not just by decrying it but, what is more important, by overcoming it in our own lives. We do it by demonstrating the power of Christ's life within us by living morally pure lives.

Third, we do this by counteracting the selfishness of our culture by practicing genuine Christian love. This means living for the glory of God and the good of others rather than putting self first.

The church always fails when it becomes conformed to the maxims, methods, and manners of the city--the world in which it lives. It always succeeds when it stands separate from the city and touches it with its supernatural healing life.

This epistle calls the church in every age to recognize its responsibility to its city. The church is responsible for the intellectual, moral, and social conditions in its city. Unfortunately many churches believe they exist merely to conserve the life of their members. We live in a cultural climate very similar to the one in which the Corinthian Christians lived. It is a culture characterized by intellectual pluralism, situation ethics, and personal selfishness. We face the same challenge the Corinthian believers did. Consequently what this epistle reveals is extremely relevant for us. We have responsibility for how people in our city think, how they behave, and whom they glorify. What they need is the message of the Cross delivered in the power of the Resurrection.

This letter is also a call to separation.

First, we must separate from absolute intellectual freedom and willingly submit our understanding and thinking to the revelation that God has given us in Scripture (chs. 1-4). There is a growing notion that all religions lead to God. Increasingly we hear that it does not matter too much what someone believes because we will all end up in the same place eventually. We need to counter that view with the revelation of the exclusive way of salvation that God has provided for people who are hopelessly lost and dead in their sins.

God has also called us to separation from moral laxity. Our culture is playing down personal morality and marital morality today. We need to proclaim the standards of God in these areas even though we may face strong opposition for doing so. Paul held these standards up in chapters 5-7.

Likewise we need to separate from selfish living. We need to make a break with goals and plans designed to glorify ourselves. Instead we need to evaluate all of our activities by the standard of chapter 13.

By way of application we can conclude several things from these observations about the emphases in this epistle.

First, the influence of the church is the influence of its individual members. The sum of its individual members' influence is the church's influence. Everything that is true of the church, therefore, is true of the individual believer in it to some extent.

Second, there should be perpetual conflict between the church and the city. If there is no conflict, the church is not having its proper influence. It may be that the city has invaded the church.

Third, the message of the church must ever be the message of the Cross and the Resurrection. It is a message of failure and success, of success out of failure. That is the message of hope the city needs to hear. Consequently we need to "be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord," because we know that our labor is not in vain in the Lord (15:58).

Constable: 1 Corinthians (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-9

A. Salutation 1:1-3

B. Thanksgiving 1:4-9

II. Conditions reported to Paul 1:10-6:20

A. Divisions in the church 1:10-4:21

1. The manifestation of the problem 1:10-17

2. The gospel as a contradiction to human wisdom 1:18-2:5

3. The Spirit's ministry of revealing God's wisdom 2:6-16

4. The spiritual yet carnal condition 3:1-4

5. The role of God's servants 3:5-17

6. Human wisdom and limited blessing 3:18-23

7. The Corinthians' relationship with Paul 4:1-21

B. Lack of discipline in the church chs. 5-6

1. Incest in the church ch. 5

2. Litigation in the church 6:1-11

3. Prostitution in the church 6:12-20

III. Questions asked of Paul 7:1-16:12

A. Marriage and related matters ch. 7

1. Advice to the married or formerly married 7:1-16

2. Basic principles 7:17-24

3. Advice concerning virgins 7:25-40

B. Food offered to idols 8:1-11:1

1. The priority of love over knowledge in Christian conduct ch. 8

2. Paul's apostolic defense ch. 9

3. The sinfulness of idolatry 10:1-22

4. The issue of marketplace food 10:23-11:1

C. Propriety in worship 11:2-16

1. The argument from culture 11:2-6

2. The argument from creation 11:7-12

3. The argument from propriety 11:13-16

D. The Lord's Supper 11:17-34

1. The abuses 11:17-26

2. The correctives 11:27-34

E. Spiritual gifts and spiritual people chs. 12-14

1. The test of Spirit control 12:1-3

2. The need for varieties of spiritual gifts 12:4-31

3. The supremacy of love ch. 13

4. The need for intelligibility 14:1-25

5. The need for order 14:26-40

F. The resurrection of believers ch. 15

l. The resurrection of Jesus Christ 15:1-11

2. The certainty of resurrection 15:12-34

3. The resurrection body 15:35-49

4. The assurance of victory over death 15:50-58

G. The collection for the Jerusalem believers 16:1-12

1. Arrangements for the collection 16:1-4

2. The travel plans of Paul and his fellow apostles 16:5-12

IV. Conclusion 16:13-24

A. Final exhortations 16:13-18

B. Final greetings and benediction 16:19-24

Constable: 1 Corinthians

1 Corinthians

Bibliography

Adams, Jay. Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980.

Andrews, J. N. "May Women Speak in Meeting?" Review and Herald. January 2, 1879. Reprinted in Adventist Review 165:5 (February 4, 1988):17.

Barclay, William. By What Authority? Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1974.

_____. The Letters to the Corinthians. Daily Study Bible series. Second ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1956.

Barrett, Charles Kingsley. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Harper's New Testament Commentaries series. New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

Bassler, Jouette M. "Paul's Theology: Whence and Whither?" In Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 3-17. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Batey, Richard. "Paul's Interaction with the Corinthians." Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965):139-46.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Bedale, Stephen. "The Meaning of kephale in the Pauline Epistles." Journal of Theological Studies NS5 (1954):211-15.

Beet, J. Agar. A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians. 6th ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1895.

Berding, Kenneth. "Confusing Word and Concept in Spiritual Gifts': Have We Forgotten James Barr's Exhortations?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 200):37-51.

Bilezikian, Gilbert G. Beyond Sex Roles. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985.

Blampied, Anne B. "Paul and Silence for The Women' in I Corinthians 14:34-35." Studia Biblica et Theologica 18:2 (October 1983):143-65.

Blomquist, Jean M. "The Effect of the Divorce Experience on Spiritual Growth." Pastoral Psychology 34:2 (Winter 1985):82-91.

Brindle, Wayne A. "Biblical Evidence for the Imminence of the Rapture." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):138-51.

Bruce, F. F., ed. 1 and 2 Corinthians. New Century Bible series. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, Oliphants, 1971.

_____. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1982.

Buckley, Jack. "Paul, Women, and the Church." Eternity 31:11 (December 1980):30-35.

Burns, J. Lanier. "A Reemphasis on the Purpose of Tongues." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:527 (July-September 1975):242-49.

Caird, George Bradford. Principalities and Powers. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.

Calvin, John. The First Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians. Translated by John W. Fraser. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Calvin's Commentaries series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973.

_____. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics series. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Reprint ed., Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Campbell, Barth. "Flesh and Spirit in 1 Cor 5:5: An Exercise in Rhetorical Criticism of the NT." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:3 (September 1993):331-42.

Carson, D. A. The Cross & Christian Ministry: An Exposition of Passages from 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Chadwick, H. "All Things to All Men' (I Cor. IX. 22)." New Testament Studies 1 (1954-55):261-75.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. He That Is Spiritual. 1918; revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1967.

_____. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.

Chitwood, Arlen L. Judgment Seat of Christ. Norman, Ok.: The Lamp Broadcast, Inc., 1986.

Clagett, John Y. "The Concept of Conscience and Its Relation to the Christian Ethic in the Corinthian Epistles." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1971.

Clark, Stephen B. Man and Woman in Christ. Ann Arbor, Mi.: Servant Books, 1980.

Cole, Sherwood A. "Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:615 (July-September 1997):355-66.

Constable, Robert L. Called Saints: Studies in I Corinthians 1-3 Moody Manna series. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1962.

_____. Live Saints: Studies in I Corinthians 4-16. Moody Manna series. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1966.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

_____. "The Gospel Message." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 201-17. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Conybeare, W. J. and Howson, J. S. The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. New ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

Conzelmann, H. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

Cousar, Charles B. "Expository Articles: I Corinthians 2:1-13." Interpretation 44:2 (April 1990):169-73.

_____. "The Theological Task of 1 Corinthians." In Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 90-102. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Dahms, John V. "The Subordination of the Son." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):351-64.

Darby, John Nelson. Notes of Readings on the Epistles to the Corinthians. London: Moorish, n.d.

_____. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Church's Relationship to the New Covenant." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):290-305.

Deere, Jack. Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Deluz, Gaston. A Companion to I Corinthians. Edited and translated by Grace E. Watt. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1963.

A Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S. v. "Corinthians, Epistles to the," by G. H. Clayton.

A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. S. v. "Corinthians, First Epistle to the," by A. Robertson.

_____. S. v. "Lord's Day," by N. J. D. White.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

_____. Speaking in Tongues: Seven Crucial Questions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975.

Dobbins, Richard. "Two Sinister Forces Undermining Clergy Marriages." Ministries 4:1 (Winter 1985-86):31-32, 39.

Dods, Marcus. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1889.

Dollar, George W. "Church History and the Tongues Movement." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):316-21.

Donfried, K. P. "Justification and Last Judgment in Paul." Interpretation 30:2 (April 1976):140-52.

Edgar, Thomas R. "The Cessation of the Sign Gifts." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:580 (October-December 1988):371-86.

_____. Miraculous Gifts: Are They for Today? Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1983.

Ellicott, Charles T. St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Longmans, Green, 1887.

Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. "Proclaiming the Lord's Death." In Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 103-32. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Fairbairn, Patrick. The Typology of Scripture. 2 vols. Sixth ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1876.

Farnell, F. David. "Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today?" Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (July-September 1992):277-303; 596 (October-December 1992):387-410; 150:597 (January-March 1993):62-88; and 598 (April-June 1993):171-202.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987.

_____. "Tongues--Least of the Gifts? Some Exegetical Observations on 1 Corinthians 12-14." Pneuma 2 (1980):3-14.

_____. "Toward a Theology of 1 Corinthians." In Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 37-58. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Fiddes, Paul S. "Woman's Head Is Man:' A Doctrinal Reflection upon a Pauline Text." Baptist Quarterly 31:8 (October 1986):370-83.

Fishbane, Michael, "Through the Looking Glass: Reflections on Ezek 43:3, Num 12:8 and 1 Cor 13:8." Hebrew Annual Review 10 (1986):63-74.

Fisk, Bruce K. "Eating Meat Offered to Idols: Corinthian Behavior and Pauline Response in 1 Corinthians 8-10 (A Response to Gordon Fee)," Trinity Journal 10 NS:1 (Spring 1989):49-70.

Foh, Susan T. Women and the Word of God. Philipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1979.

Fung, Ronald Y. K. "The Nature of the Ministry according to Paul," Evangelical Quarterly 54 (1982):129-46.

Furnish, Victor Paul. "Theology in 1 Corinthians." In Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 59-89. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Gaffin, Richard B., Jr. "Life-Giving Spirit': Probing the Center of Paul's Pneumatology." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:4 (December 1998):573-89.

Gangel, Kenneth O. "Biblical Feminism and Church Leadership." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:557 (January-March 1983):55-63.

Geisler, Norman L. "The Significance of Christ's Physical Resurrection." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):148-70.

Geldard, Mark. "Jesus' Teaching on Divorce: Thoughts on the Meaning of porneia in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9." Churchman 92:2 (1978):134-43.

Gilmour, S. M. "Pastoral Care in the New Testament Church." New Testament Studies 10 (1963-64):393-98.

Glenn, Donald R. "Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2: A Case Study in Biblical Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 39-51. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Godet, F. Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. 2 vols. Translated by A. Cusin. Classic Commentary Library series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1886; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gromacki, Robert Glenn. The Modern Tongues Movement. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1967.

Grosheide, F. W. Commentary on the First Epistles to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953.

Grudem, Wayne. "Does kephale (Head') Mean Source' or Authority Over' in Greek Literature? A survey of 2,336 Examples." Trinity Journal 6NS (1985):38-59.

_____. The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982.

_____. The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988.

_____ "The Meaning of kephale: A Response to Recent Studies." Trinity Journal 11NS (1990):3-72.

_____. "The Meaning of kephale (head'): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:1 (March 2001):25-65.

_____. "Prophecy--Yes, But Teaching--No: Paul's Consistent Advocacy of Women's Participation Without Governing Authority." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:1 (March 1987):11-23.

_____. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

_____. "Why Christians Can Still Prophesy." Christianity Today, September 16, 1988, pp.29-31, 34-35.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Edited by Leslie F. Church. 1 vol. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Heth, William A. and Wenham, Gordon J. Jesus and Divorce. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1984.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "Evidence from 1 Corinthians 15." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 225-34. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Hill, C. E. "Paul's Understanding of Christ's Kingdom in I Corinthians 15:20-28." Novum Testamentum 30:4 (October 1988):297-320.

Hodge, Charles. A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians. 1857 and 1859; reprint ed. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1983.

Hodges, Zane C. Grace in Eclipse. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. The Hungry Inherit. Chicago: Moody Press, 1972.

_____. "The Purpose of Tongues." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:479 (July-September 1963):226-33.

Hoehner, Harold W. "The Purpose of Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:20-25." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 53-66. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Holmyard, Harold R., III. "Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Refer to Women Praying and Prophesying in Church?" Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December 1997):461-72.

Hooker, Morna D. "Authority on Her Head: An Examination of I Cor. XI. 10." New Testament Studies 10 (1963-64):410-16.

Houghton, Myron J. "A Reexamination of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):344-56.

House, H. Wayne. "Caught in the Middle," Kindred Spirit 13:2 (Summer 1989):12-14.

_____. "The Ministry of Women in the Apostolic and Postapostolic Periods." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:580 (October-December 1988):387-99.

_____. "Resurrection, Reincarnation, and Humanness." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):131-50.

_____. "Should a Woman Prophesy or Preach before Men?" Bibliotheca Sacra 145:578 (April-June 1988):141-61.

_____. "The Speaking of Women and the Prohibition of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:579 (July-September 1988):301-18.

_____. "Tongues and the Mystery Religions of Corinth." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:558 (April-June 1983):134-50.

Howell, Timothy D. "The Church and the AIDS Crisis." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593 (January-March 1992):74-82.

Hoyt, Samuel L. "The Judgment Seat of Christ and Unconfessed Sins." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:545 (January-March 1980):32-40.

_____. "The Negative Aspects of the Christian's Judgment." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:546 (April-June 1980):125-32.

Hullinger, Jerry M. "The Problem of Animal Sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):279-89.

Hurd, J. C., Jr., The Origin of I Corinthians. New York: Seabury Press, 1965.

Hurley, James B. Man and Woman In Biblical Perspective. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S. v. "Corinthians, First Epistle to the," by R. Dykes Shaw.

Ironside, Harry A. Addresses on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1938.

Irvin, Dorothy. "The Ministry of Women in the Early Church: The Archaeological Evidence." Touchstone 4:1 (January 1986):24-33.

Isaksson, Abel. "Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple." Translated by Neil Tomkinson. Th.D. dissertation, University of Uppsala, 1965.

Jackson, Thomas A. "Concerning Spiritual Gifts: A Study of I Corinthians 12." Faith and Mission 7:1 (Fall 1989):61-69.

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; and Brown, David. Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Jeremias, Joachim. "Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God." New Testament Studies 2 (1955-56):151-59.

_____. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1969.

Jewett, Paul K. Man as Male and Female. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975.

Johnson, Elliott E. Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1990.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "1 Corinthians." In Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1227-60. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

_____. "The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):309-11.

Justice, Sam. "Clergy Divorce: A Perplexing Problem." Ministries 4:1 (Winter 1985-86):24-25, 29-30.

Keil, C. F. and Delitzsch, Franz. The Pentateuch. 3 vols. Translated by James Martin. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Kitchens, Ted G. "Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13.

Knight, George W., III. The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.

Lacey, W. K. The Family in Classical Greece. London: Thames and Hudson, 1968.

Lampe, W. H. "Church Discipline and the Interpretation of the Epistles to the Corinthians." In Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox. Edited by W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.

Laney, J. Carl. "The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):353-64.

_____. The Divorce Myth. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1981.

Lange, John Peter, ed. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 10: Romans and Corinthians, by J. P. Lange, F. R. Fay, and Christian Friedrich Kling. Translated by J. F. Hurst, Daniel W. Poor, and Conway P. Wing.

Lampe, Peter. "Theological Wisdom and the Word About the Cross:' The Rhetorical Scheme in I Corinthians 1-4." Interpretation 44:2 (April 1990):117-31.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. 1937. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lester, Andrew D. "Some Observations on the Psychological Effects of Women in Ministry." Review and Expositor 83:1 (Winter 1986):63-70.

Lias, J. J. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1888.

Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on the Epistles of St Paul. Reprint ed. Winona Lake: Alpha Publications, n.d.

Lightner, Robert P. Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.

_____. Speaking in Tongues and Divine Healing. Second ed. Schaumburg, Il.: Regular Baptist Press, 1978.

Lindars, Barnabas. "The Sound of the Trumpet: Paul and Eschatology." Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 67:2 (Spring 1985):766-82.

Litfin, A. Duane. "Evangelical Feminism: Why Traditionalists Reject It." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:543 (July-September 1979):259-71.

Lowery, David K. "1 Corinthians." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament pp. 505-49. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

_____. "The Head Covering and the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:2-34." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:570 (April-June 1986):155-63.

_____. "A Theology of Paul's Missionary Epistles." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 243-97. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Malick, David E. "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:600 (October-December 1993):479-92.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. 1 Corinthians. MacArthur New Testament Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.

_____. Charismatic Chaos. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. The Charismatics: A Doctrinal Perspective. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979.

_____. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

Mare, W. Harold. "1 Corinthians." In Romans-Galatians. Vol. 10 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

McRae, William. Dynamics of Spiritual Gifts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Mollenkott, Virginia. Women, Men and the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon, 1977.

Morgan, G. Campbell. The Corinthian Letters of Paul. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1946.

_____. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958.

Murray, John. Divorce. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972.

New Scofield Reference Bible. Edited by E. Schuyler English, et al. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Oldham, Roger Singleton. "Positional and Functional Equality: An Appraisal of the Major Arguments for the Ordination of Women." Mid-America Theological Journal 9:2 (Fall 1985):1-29.

Olshausen, H. Biblical Commentary on St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1851.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Pattern for Maturity. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Oh: Dunham Publishing Co., 1963.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Poythress, Vern Sheridan. "Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:1 (March 1996):71-101.

Proctor, John. "Fire in God's House: Influence of Malachi 3 in the NT." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):9-14.

Pyne, Robert A. "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:598 (April-June 1993):203-18.

Quine, Jay A. "Court Involvement in Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593 (January-March 1992):60-73, and 594 (April-June 1992):223-36.

Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Revised ed. Boston: W. A. Wilde Co., 1956.

Ramsay, William M. The Cities of St. Paul. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1907.

Reaume, John D. "Another Look at 1 Corinthians 15:29, Baptized for the Dead'." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):457-75.

Reese, Alexander. The Approaching Advent of Christ. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1937; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975.

Rhyne, C. Thomas. "Expository Articles: I Corinthians 3:1-9." Interpretation 44:2 (April 1990):174-78.

Ridderbos, H. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975.

Robertson, Archibald, and Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. International Critical Commentary series. Second ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Rosner, Brian S. "Temple and Holiness in 1 Corinthians 5." Tyndale Bulletin 42 (1991):137-45.

Rosscup, James E. "A New Look at 1 Corinthians 3:12--'Gold, Silver, Precious Stones.'" Master's Seminary Journal 1:1 (Spring (1990):33-51.

Ryrie, Charles C. Balancing the Christian Life. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.

_____. Basic Theology. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1986.

_____. "Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage." By the Author, 1981.

_____. "Contrasting Views on Sanctification." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 189-200. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. The Grace of God. Chicago: Moody Press, 1963.

_____. The Holy Spirit. Handbook of Bible Doctrine series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

_____. The Place of Women in the Church. New York: Macmillan, 1958; reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968. (A 1978 edition, also published by Moody Press, was titled The Role of Women in the Church.)

_____. The Ryrie Study Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978.

_____. "What Is Spirituality?" Bibliotheca Sacra 126:503 (July-September 1969):204-13.

_____. You Mean the Bible Teaches That . . .. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

_____. "Sinners' Who Are Forgiven or Saints' Who Sin?" Biblitheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):400-12.

Savage, Paula A. "Greek Women's Dress." Biblical Illustrator 12:2 (Winter 1986):17-23.

Scanzoni, Letha and Hardesty, Nancy. All We're Meant to Be. Waco: Word Books, 1975.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 8 vols. 1910. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966.

Sellers, C. Norman. Biblical Conclusions Concerning Tongues. Miami: By the author, n.d.

Simon, W. G. H. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: Introduction and Commentary. London: SCM, 1959.

Smith, Jay E. "Can Fallen Leaders Be Restored to Leadership? Bibliotheca Sacra 151:604 (October-December 1994):455-80.

Smith, Wilbur. "Inheritance and Reward in Heaven." Eternity, March 1977, p. 79.

Smith, William Robertson. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. 3rd ed. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1969.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Sweeting, George. Love Is the Greatest. 1968; revised ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Terry, Milton S. Biblical Hermeneutics. Second ed. Reprinted. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1964.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. S.v. "erchomai," by Johannes Schneider.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Thomas, Robert L. "1 Cor 13:11 Revisited: an Exegetical Update." Master's Seminary Journal 4:2 (Fall 1993):187-201.

_____. "Tongues . . . Will Cease'." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 17:2 (Spring 1974):81-89.

_____. "Prophecy Rediscovered? A Review of The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593 (January-March 1992):83-96.

_____. Understanding Spiritual Gifts: An exegetical study of 1 Corinthians 12-14. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978.

Thrall, M. E. The First and Second Letters of Paul to the Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "First Corinthians Thirteen and The Tongues Question," Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):311-16.

_____. "The Spiritual Man." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:498 (April-June 1968):139-46.

Ukleja, P. Michael. "Homosexuality in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:560 (October-December 1983):350-58.

Unger, Merrill F. New Testament Teaching on Tongues. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971.

Vine, W. E. 1 Corinthians. London: Oliphants, 1951.

von Campenhausen, H. Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries. Stanford: Stanford University, 1969.

Wall, Joe L. Going for the Gold. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Waltke, Bruce K. "1 Corinthians 11:2-16: An Interpretation." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:537 (January-March 1978):46-57.

Walvoord, John F. The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

_____. "Contemporary Issues in the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Part IV: Spiritual Gifts Today." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:520 (October-December 1973):315-28. Reprinted as "The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:570 (April-June 1986):109-21.

_____. The Holy Spirit. 1954. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

_____. The Rapture Question. Findlay, Oh: Dunham Publishing Co., 1957.

White, Joel R. "Baptized on Account of the Dead": The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in its Context." Journal of Biblical Literature 116:3 (1997):487-99.

White, R. Fowler. "Does God Speak Today Apart from the Bible? In The Coming Evangelical Crisis, pp. 77-90. Edited by John H. Armstrong. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996.

Wilkin, Robert N. "Are All Things Lawful for Believers?" Grace Evangelical Society Newsletter 4:7 (July 1989):2.

_____. "The So-Called So-Called Brother." Grace Evangelical Society News 6:10 (October 1991):2-3.

Wilson, Kenneth T. "Should Women Wear Headcoverings?" Bibliotheca Sacra 148:592 (October-December 1991):442-62.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):241-52.

Zuck, Roy B. "The Doctrine of Conscience." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):329-40.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

THE FIRST

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE,

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

INTRODUCTION.

Corinth was the capital of Achaia, a very rich and populous city, where St. Paul had preached a year and a half, and converted a great many. See Acts xviii. 10. Now having received a letter from them, (chap. vii. 1.) and being informed of divers disputes and divisions among them, (chap. i. ver. 11.) he wrote this letter to them, and sent it by the same persons, Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, who had brought him their letter, chap. xvi. 17. It was written about the year 56, not from Philippi, as it is commonly marked at the end of the Greek copies, but rather from Ephesus. The subject and main design of this Epistle was to take away the divisions among them about the talents and merits of those who had baptized and preached to them, and to settle divers matters of ecclesiastical discipline. The apostle justifieth his mission, and his manner of preaching, chap. i, ii, iii, and iv. He teacheth them what was to be done with the man guilty of a scandalous sin of incest, chap. v. He speaks of sins against chastity; of matrimony; and of the state of continency, chap. vi and vii. Of meats offered to idols, chap. viii. Of his manner of conversing with them, and what their conversation ought to be, chap. ix and x. Of the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, chap. xi. Of the different gifts of the Holy Ghost, and how to employ them, chap. xii, xiii, and xiv. Of the faith of the resurrection, chap. xv. Of charitable contributions, and of his design of coming again to them, chap. xvi. (Witham) --- St. Paul having planted the faith in Corinth, where he had preached a year and a half, and converted a great many, went to Ephesus. After being there three years, he wrote this first Epistle to the Corinthians, and sent it by the same persons, Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, who had brought their letter to him. It was written about twenty-four years after our Lord's ascension, and contains several matters appertaining to faith and morals, and also to ecclesiastical discipline. (Challoner)

====================

Gill: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 CORINTHIANS

This was not the first epistle that was written by the apostle to the Corinthians, for we read in this of his having written an epistle to them before, 1Co 5:9, but this is the first epistle of his unto them, that is now extant; and has been received by the churches, as of divine authority, being written by the inspiration of God, of which there has been no doubt in any age. The apostle himself was nearly two years at Corinth; where he preached with great success; and was the instrument of converting many persons, who by him were formed into a church state, consisting both of Jews and Gentiles, as is clear from many passages in this epistle, and whom be left in good order, and in great peace and harmony; but quickly after his departure, false teachers got in among them, and bad principles were imbibed by many of them, and evil practices prevailed among them, and they fell into factions and parties, which occasioned the apostle to write this epistle to them, as well as their writing to him concerning certain things, they desired to have his judgment and opinion of, 1Co 7:1, It is thought to be written about the year of Christ 55, and in the first year of Nero, though some place it in the year 59. It was written not from Philippi, as the subscription added to it affirms, but from Ephesus, as appears from 1Co 16:8, and, it may be, after the uproar raised there by Demetrius, as should seem from a passage in 1Co 15:32. The matter of it is various. The apostle first rebukes them for their schisms and divisions; suggests that their regard to the wisdom of men, and the philosophy of the Gentiles, had brought the simplicity of the Gospel into contempt with them; blames them for their conduct in the case of the incestuous person, and urges them to put him away from them; reproves them for going to law with one another before Heathen magistrates, and warmly inveighs against fornication; and then answers several questions, and resolves several cases concerning marriage; treats of things offered to idols, and of the maintenance of ministers; and dissuades from idolatry, and all appearance of it; takes notice of the unbecoming conduct of the members of the church at the Lord's supper; and discourses concerning the nature and use of spiritual gifts, and commends charity above them; observes and corrects some irregularities in the use of their gifts; proves by various arguments the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, which some of them denied; exhorts to a collection for the poor saints, and to several other things, and concludes the epistle with the salutations of others, and of himself.

Gill: 1 Corinthians 10 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 CORINTHIANS 10

In this chapter the apostle cautions the Corinthians against security on account of their gifts, knowledge, and profession, since men of great characters, and enjoying high privileges, have fallen into sin, and have been severely punished; and he particularly cautions against idolatry, and all appearances of it, on which account he again introduces the case of eating things offered to idols, and dissuades from it, when it tended to idolatry, and had the appearance of it; though in some cases he allows of eating them, but directs that all should be done to the glory of God, and without offence to any, as they had him for an example. And now, whereas in the latter part of the preceding chapter he had signified his jealousy of himself, lest he should be a castaway, he pursues the thought, and improves it to the use of the Corinthians, that they, on account of their high attainments, should not think themselves secure of all danger; and for this purpose sets before them the instances and examples of the Jewish fathers, of which he would not have them ignorant, who were persons that enjoyed great privileges, and were partakers of things which bore some resemblance to Gospel ordinances; as their passing under the cloud through the sea was a figure of baptism, and their eating manna, and drinking water out of the rock, which was a type of Christ, had some likeness to the ordinance of the Lord's supper, of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, which are meat and drink indeed in a spiritual sense, 1Co 10:1 and yet all these persons that enjoyed these privileges were not acceptable to God; nor did they enter into the land of Canaan, but fell in the wilderness, 1Co 10:5 in which they were examples to men under the Gospel dispensation, that they may shun the evils which were the cause of their fall and overthrow, 1Co 10:6 particularly idolatry, of which their making and worshipping the golden calf is an instance, 1Co 10:7 also fornication, on account of which three and twenty thousand fell in one day, 1Co 10:8 likewise tempting Christ, which brought upon them destruction by the fiery serpents, 1Co 10:9 moreover, murmuring against God, and his servants, for which reason the destroyer was sent among them, and destroyed them, 1Co 10:10. All which happened, and are recorded for the use, instruction, and admonition of professors of religion in these last times, 1Co 10:11 from all which the apostle infers, by way of caution to the saints, that they should not be secure of standing, but take heed lest they fall, since so many and such great persons had before fallen, 1Co 10:12. But for their comfort, under afflictions, he observes, that as they were common to men, so the faithfulness of God was concerned to support them under them, and deliver them out of them, that they might not utterly fail of the grace of God, and perish by them, 1Co 10:13. And in order to their standing, he particularly dehorts them from idolatry, 1Co 10:14 and every appearance of it, as eating things offered to idols, in an idol's temple, which is what he has chiefly in view, as appears by the following verses: and whereas they were men of wisdom and judgment whom he addressed, he was the more encouraged to use the following arguments with them, the force of which they would understand, 1Co 10:15. And his first argument is taken from the Lord's supper, and the communion of his body and blood, which believers have with him in eating the bread, and drinking the wine; suggesting, that in like manner such who eat things offered to idols, as such, had communion with them, and so were guilty of idolatry, and therefore should be abstained from, 1Co 10:16. His next argument is taken from the union and communion which saints have one with another at the Lord's table, whereby they appear to be one body and one bread; and so such that associate themselves with idolaters in their temples, and eat with them things offered to idols, are one with them in a like sense, and chargeable with idolatry, 1Co 10:17. To which is added a third, taken from the priests of the Israelitish nation, who eating of the sacrifices, were partakers of the altar, worshipped the God of Israel, and had communion with him; and so in like manner eating of the sacrifices offered to idols, and especially in one of their temples, might be very well interpreted a partaking of their altars, a worshipping of them, and so idolatry, 1Co 10:18 not that he thought that an idol was to be considered as a deity, or that things offered to it were upon an equal foot with the Lord's supper, or Jewish sacrifices, 1Co 10:19 but as there was a communion in the one, so in the other; for as for the sacrifices of the Gentiles, they were offered to devils, and not to God; and which he mentions to deter them from having the most distant regard to such sacrifices, 1Co 10:20 it being the most inconsistent, as well as shocking thing in the world, to partake of both cups and tables, those of the Lord, and those of devils, 1Co 10:21 wherefore the apostle dissuades from such idolatrous practice, from the pernicious and dangerous consequences of them, stirring up the Lord to jealousy, fighting against him, and being destroyed of him, 1Co 10:22. But inasmuch as things offered to idols were in themselves indifferent, the apostle directs to a proper use of them; and observes, that though they might be lawfully eaten, yet the expediency of time and place, and the edification of others, ought to be considered, 1Co 10:23 for we are not to seek our own pleasure, but the welfare of others, 1Co 10:24. If indeed such meat is sold in the butchers' meat markets in common with others, it may be bought and eat, when no questions are asked about it, what it is, 1Co 10:25 and that for this reason, because the earth, and all that is in it, are the Lord's, and his people have a right to all through him, and therefore may make use of every creature in it, 1Co 10:26. So if an idolater invites a believer to dine with him, and he accepts the invitation, he may very lawfully eat whatever is before him, even though it be meat offered to idols, provided he asks no questions about it, 1Co 10:27. But should anyone present point at certain meat, and say that was offered to idols, then it was advisable not to eat of it; partly for the sake of the unbeliever that pointed at it, who would be hardened in his idolatry by it; and partly for the sake of the conscience of a weak believer present, who might be offended at it; and the reason given to enforce such a conduct is, because there is plenty of other food without it, 1Co 10:28. And then the apostle explains whose conscience he meant; not the conscience of him that is invited, but either of the unbeliever, or the weak brother; and suggests a reason why he should not make use of his liberty in their presence, and under such circumstances, lest it should be censured and condemned, 1Co 10:29 or he be reproached for what he had, through good will, and had reason to be thankful for, 1Co 10:30 wherefore, upon the whole, the apostle advises in this affair, and in all others, to have the glory of God in view in the first place, 1Co 10:31 and next to that to be careful not to offend any sort of persons whatever, 1Co 10:32 and proposes himself as an example in these things to be followed; who sought not his own advantage, but the pleasure and profit of others, and to promote, as much as in him lay, their salvation, and not hinder it, 1Co 10:33.

College: 1 Corinthians (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

Since the past few decades have seen an explosion in the number of books, articles, and commentaries on First Corinthians, a brief word to the readers might help them know what to expect or not to expect from this commentary. This commentary is intended for use by studious lay people, Bible teachers, and seminary students. Most scholars and specialists in the area of New Testament will probably find this commentary's treatment of 1 Corinthians and its problems too elementary. Because of the intended audience for this work and the constraints of length, the user should be aware of certain acknowledged limitations. There are at least four of these:

1. This commentary does not pretend to look at every problem, real or imaginary, which has caught the eye of previous scholarship.

2. The commentary does not attempt to cite continuously the interpretations of leading Christian thinkers as they have written on this Pauline letter.

3. Interpretations are given on individual passages without always citing the full evidence and without working through the attendant arguments, either for or against particular views.

4. Only a moderate number of footnotes have been used. In addition, the vast majority of the secondary literature cited will be English language and will, when possible, be in book form. The nonspecialist for whom this commentary is intended has little interest in or access to technical materials, journal literature, or foreign language materials.

Those who wish to study this letter of Paul in more detail should look to some of the more technical commentaries (e.g., Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians ).

I owe a special word of thanks to two individuals. My friend Gail Brady graciously typed the entire manuscript of this commentary for me. My friend and colleague Prof. Allen Black read the entire manuscript for me and saved me and my readers from more than one instance of an inappropriate choice of words as well as an occasional overstatement.

I dedicate this volume to my parents who shared with me over the years their own faith, hope, and love.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY

The text of Scripture known as 1 Corinthians has provided a well from which believers have drunk for almost two millennia. This portion of Scripture has served the church as a resource for theology, for homiletical exposition, for pastoral issues, and more recently as a source for reconstructing social dimensions and dynamics of early Pauline Christianity. Whatever else one wants to say about 1 Corinthians, it cannot be doubted that it has had a significant impact on the Christian church.

Notwithstanding the necessity and value of this diversity of perspectives and interpretive methodologies which have come across the stage of Christian history, this present work is more narrowly focused in its approach. This work is primarily a historical-exegetical commentary, the goal of which is to understand and set forth the ideas, doctrines, and feelings Paul communicated in the letter of 1 Corinthians. The phrase "ideas, doctrines, and feelings" is not intended to describe an "intellectual history" of the great Apostle. Rather, Paul's ideas, doctrines, and feelings, as recorded in 1 Corinthians, are engendered and evoked by a series of practices and beliefs, diverse in themselves, coming from individuals and groups in the church of God at Corinth.

A decision to write a historical-exegetical commentary brings with it several assumptions and commitments.

1. This means in the first instance that the feelings, doctrines, and ideas of Paul must, as far as possible, be understood in the historical framework, both in which he wrote them and in which the first readers lived. A historical-exegetical approach has little in common with simplistic attempts to modernize Paul, to re-create him after the image of western Christianity. To be sure, every practicing believer knows firsthand the need to bring forward, with God's help and wisdom, the meaning of the ancient text into the modern world. How strange it appears, however, when those who wish to contextualize the Gospel in the modern setting have not invested the time and effort to first learn what it meant in its original context. Just as a good translation of Russian literature into French requires that one be familiar with both languages, so a good translation of the ideas of Paul's letter to the Corinthians into modern idiom requires a competent grasp of the original meaning of this letter as well as the modern world.

2. A commitment to a historical-exegetical methodology means that one must always recognize that Paul's letter to the Corinthians is an occasional document, arising in the first instance as direct responses to ad hoc issues and problems in the lives of believers living in a certain region of the Roman Empire, at a specific time, and under particular historical and cultural circumstances. Since the historical method infers that Paul's commands, arguments, and instructions were given in direct response to the issues raised by the lives and ideas of the Corinthians, one must openly acknowledge that 1 Corinthians may not address every issue that we, living two millennia later, hope it would. In fact, 1 Corinthians was not even adequate or appropriate for addressing the problem in all the Pauline churches. I am certain, for example, that the churches of Galatia would have been perplexed to receive 1 Corinthians as a solution to their specific problems. Indeed, even at Corinth it had to be supplemented by 2 Corinthians.

Not only does the historical method help restrain us from foisting our own agendas and ecclesiastical problems upon that small group of believers who lived at a particular time in Roman Achaia almost 2000 years ago, it also serves as a restraint for those who would twist the Scriptures and put forth their own ideology masquerading as exegesis. Time and again commentators have found a theology or doctrinal imprimatur in the text of 1 Corinthians which, even if generally true, has little in common with Paul's own intention and goals for this letter. Throughout the centuries preachers and theologians have strolled through the cafeteria of 1 Corinthians, appetite whetted, looking for some word, idea, or verse to place upon the plate from which they feed the church. At some point this kind of pragmatism in handling Scripture, which is driven by a variety of appetites, must be labeled as malpractice, and the student of Scripture needs to obey again the pastoral admonition to become "a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15).

Even though a historical-exegetical method is the underpinning of this commentary, it is in no way the final task for the church in the interpretation of 1 Corinthians. Rather, the historical-exegetical approach should be the first step, and a necessary one, which is followed by many other steps taken by believers who, through the course of their journey, translate the manifold and variegated message of 1 Corinthians for the contemporary and global church of Jesus Christ. The individual tools and methods used in this process of contextualization would hopefully come from the guidance of God as well as study in the traditional theological disciplines of homiletics, systematic theology, pastoral theology, ethnotheology, and the like.

THE LETTER OF 1 CORINTHIANS

DESTINATION

The letter of 1 Corinthians was sent by Paul and Sosthenes to the congregation of believers in the city of Corinth. This is in contrast to 2 Corinthians, which was written not only to believers in Corinth but also to believers in the province of Achaia, of which Corinth was the capital (2 Cor 1:1). The content of 1 Cor 5:9 "I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people" makes it evident that the letter of 1 Corinthians is not Paul's first written communication with the church at Corinth since he here refers to a previous letter he had already sent them and which they apparently misunderstood (5:9-11).

DATE

Even though the Acts of the Apostles was not written for the purpose of providing a historical framework for the Pauline Corpus, there are instances where Acts and facts from ancient historical records do supplement the letters of Paul. One very important way in which Acts supplements the less specific material in the Pauline letters is in regard to chronology. Without the chronological framework of Acts, it would be much harder to know how to arrange in sequence materials from Paul's letters and to assign dates to them. It is our good fortune to be able to assign dates to about five episodes mentioned in Acts, and thereby, assign relative dates to parts of Paul's correspondence. One of these instances is the case of Acts 18 where Luke narrates the beginning of the Pauline mission in Corinth. At that point we have firm evidence for the date of the Christian mission based upon supplemental historical data. In particular, Acts indicates that Paul's work at Corinth took place while Gallio was the proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12). This Roman official, who was the brother of the Roman philosopher Seneca, is known from ancient Roman literature as well as archaeological data. It is this latter realm of evidence which helps specify the time of his career when he was proconsul in Corinth. This would put Paul's work at Corinth and his appearance before Gallio in the early 50s. Acts 18:11 indicates that Paul worked in Corinth for 18 months; this means that Paul's correspondence in 1 Corinthians would have occurred in approximately A.D. 55. While some interpreters have attempted to get even more precise with the dating, it seems that A.D. 55 is as specific as the evidence can support.

PROVENANCE

Paul was actually not far from Corinth when he wrote 1 Corinthians. First Corinthians 16:8 points decisively to a site on the eastern side of the Aegean Sea, in Ephesus, on the western coast of the Roman province of Asia. Travel between large port cities such as Corinth and Ephesus was frequent and relatively easy in the Roman world. Consequently, it is no surprise to find Corinthians visiting Paul, and Paul and his co-workers making visits from Asia to Corinth.

ROMAN CORINTH

The Greek city of Corinth had suffered defeat at the hands of the expanding Roman Republic in 146 B.C. The archaeological evidence does not support, however, the idea that in the ensuing years all life and Greek influence vanished from this conquered and partially desolate site. While the Greek Corinth was clearly defeated, it was not totally deserted in the decades following 146 B.C. When Julius Caesar, shortly before his assassination in 44 B.C., reestablished the city as a Roman colony, it would have quickly become a city which was dominantly, but not exclusively, Roman. Consequently, any study of Paul's letter to the church of God at Corinth must take seriously the fact that Paul was addressing a city which had been, since 44 B.C., a Roman colony ( Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis ). Roman colonies were typically established as outposts for promoting Roman culture, religion, language, and political systems as well as providing lands for retired Roman soldiers. And even though Corinth was located geographically in Greece, there is no doubt that Roman mores and ideas impacted the local populace since, as Aulus Gellius noted (2nd cent. A.D.), Roman colonies "seemed to be miniatures, as it were, and in a way copies" of the Roman people. Therefore, Corinth possessed all the appropriate Roman laws, magistrates and officials.

Because of Corinth's mercantile character and important geographical location, it quickly attracted new residents from throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Consequently, by the time of Paul's arrival in Corinth, almost one century after its reestablishment as a city, the population would have included not only Romans, but also Greeks, Jews, Egyptians, Syrians, etc.

ORIGIN, STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF 1 CORINTHIANS

Even though there is not a consensus among interpreters regarding the exact nature and causes of the problems which Paul treats in 1 Corinthians, there is general agreement that the letter is organized around the cluster of problems which Paul is striving to remedy by his apostolic instruction. The letter is basically a series of smaller units of thought, each of which seems to be directed to a particular aberration in the beliefs and/or practices of the Corinthians. Paul's style in the letter is to acknowledge the existence of a sin or problem, address the sin or problem, and then move on to the next one.

Paul's information about these various problems at Corinth did not come from firsthand knowledge of his own nor through inspiration. The majority, if not all, of Paul's information about the various issues with which he dealt in the letter came most likely from two distinct human sources. The information and problems treated in 1 Cor 1-6 came from those from the house of Chloe. First Corinthians 1:11 states that "some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you," thereby identifying Paul's source of information for the problem he treats in 1 Cor 1-4. The wording of 1 Cor 5:1 "It is actually reported" points probably to additional information in 1 Cor 5-6 which was also supplied by those from Chloe's house. If this is not the case, then we have no idea who provided this report of immorality among the Corinthians.

A second major source for Paul's information is mentioned in 1 Cor 7:1 when he wrote, " Now for the matters you wrote about ." Paul is expressly acknowledging here that the list of issues and problems that he is going to respond to came from a document authored and sent by Corinthian believers to him. Numerous modern interpreters believe, rightly so in my opinion, that this Corinthian document informed Paul not only about the issue discussed in 1 Cor 7:1ff, but also the matters discussed at 8:1ff ( Now about food sacrificed to idols), 12:1ff ( Now about spiritual gifts), and 16:1ff ( Now about the collection for God's people).

At least two points can be drawn from this information. The first is that the Corinthians themselves should receive credit for the broad outline of what was discussed and treated in 1 Corinthians. In addition, one ought not overlook the fact that Paul's treatment of the Corinthians' problems is a treatment of the problems as communicated to him through an unnamed informant of one of the women members of the congregation and through a letter (authors unknown) sent to Paul which already had, regardless of its tone, an agenda for which Paul was not responsible. It is obvious, then, that even though no one seriously doubts the Pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians, it is important for the interpreter to appreciate the complex role of the Corinthians in their contribution to the content and structure of the epistle.

PROBLEMS AT CORINTH

The task of identifying and reconstructing the multiple problems within the church of God at Corinth on the basis of Paul's letter to them is not a simple one. Writing decades ago on this very problem Prof. Kirsopp Lake commented,

The difficulty which undoubtedly attends any attempt to understand the Epistles of St. Paul is largely due to the fact that they are letters; for the writer of letters assumes the knowledge of a whole series of facts, which are, as he is quite aware, equally familiar to his correspondent and to himself. But as time goes on this knowledge is gradually forgotten and what was originally quite plain becomes difficult and obscure; it has to be recovered from stray hints and from other documents by a process of laborious research, before it is possible for the letters to be read with anything approaching to the ease and intelligence possessed by those to whom they were originally sent.

There are some scholars who wish to interpret most, if not all, of the problems in 1 Corinthians as arising from one group of individuals at Corinth. The evidence of 1 Corinthians does not, in my judgment, support such a theory. There are, admittedly, aspects of this approach which are attractive. Common traits, to be sure, can be found among some of the problems. For example, Paul refers to the sin of boasting as an ingredient in more than one of the problems within the Corinthians fellowship. Likewise, the terms "division" ( , schisma ) (1 Cor 1:10; 11:18) and "dissension" (also schisma ) (1 Cor 12:25) are used by Paul in describing more than one problem situation among the letter's recipients. This common denominator of schisma does not require the conclusion that the problems of "party loyalty" in 1 Cor 1-4, abuse of the Lord's Meal in 11:17-22, and misunderstanding and misuse of spiritual gifts in 12-14 must all be traced back to a common theological aberration, to the same social stratum in the church, or to a particular house church in Corinth.

Since the goal in this commentary is to interpret 1 Corinthians as Paul's coherent letter, we must respect Paul's own categorization of the issues at Corinth if we want to understand the intent of his instruction and flow of thought as he responded and gave directions to the church of God at Corinth. If direct and explicit social links between the organizational subunits within 1 Corinthians can be isolated, so much the better for exegesis. However, to this point in time many of the rhetorical, sociological and anthropological reconstructions of the Christian community(ies) at Corinth resemble, at times, a Procrustean Bed rather than a picture put together on the basis of an exegetical-historical model.

Throughout the modern period of Pauline interpretation scholars have regularly commented on the issue of Paul's opponents at Corinth. In this interpretive context, the term opponent has become almost synonymous with those who promoted or participated in the spiritual aberrations opposed by Paul in 1 Corinthians. More recently, however, other scholars have rightly attempted to both refine and redefine the term opponent. From this ongoing discussion two points are relevant to this study of 1 Corinthians. First, one must not automatically equate the personalities, groups and aberrations behind 2 Corinthians with those behind 1 Corinthians. There is no compelling reason to believe that the two letters were written to address the exact same problems. In fact, the internal evidence leads away from such a position. (1) 1 Corinthians was written only to the church in Corinth, while 2 Corinthians was written not only to the church in Corinth but also to all believers in all the Roman province of Achaia, of which Corinth was the capital. (2) Most of the key terms and ideas of each letter are not found in the other. (3) The tenor and literary characteristics of each letter are distinctive.

The second observation from the contemporary discussion of Pauline opponents is the question of whether every spiritual aberration within a Pauline church should be interpreted as intentional and direct opposition to Paul himself. It is not a question of whether Paul ever had opponents (e.g., 2 Corinthians, Galatians), but whether the term opponent is the appropriate term for everyone who was guilty of spiritual perceptions and doctrines different than Paul's or whose lifestyle was not in harmony with Paul's ethical teachings. John Calvin touched on this point in his commentary on 1 Corinthians when he wrote, "Now, I have good reason for thinking that those worthless fellows, who had caused trouble in the Corinthian church, were not open enemies of the truth." Calvin's point is well taken and his caution in using the term opponent will be followed in this work. More explicit and extended discussions on the topic of opponents will be found at the appropriate junctures in the commentary itself.

OUTLINE OF 1 CORINTHIANS

The recognition of literary units in 1 Corinthians is part and parcel of the task of exegesis. The opening and closing of units of thought are not merely arbitrary literary embellishments nor are they just convenient ways to structure Paul's thought and feelings. These units put linguistic and semantic limits on the words and thoughts of Paul. The recognition of these demarcations in 1 Corinthians is mandated, since it helps ensure that the flow of Paul's rhetorical argument remains within the limits set by the Apostle himself. Moreover, a respect for the conceptual units and subunits of Paul's letter will greatly reduce the tendency to make his words mean more than he intended them to mean. This tendency to generalize Paul's thought and words beyond the immediate rhetorical setting comes at a high price, since it can only be maintained by denying the occasional nature of the Pauline correspondence as well as the universally recognized fact that meaning emerges from rhetorical and contextual usage.

Introduction etc. 1:1-9

Issue 1 Disunity and Community Fragmentation 1:10-4:20

Issue 2 Reports of Immorality 5:1-6:20

Issue 3 Sexuality/Celibacy/Marriage 7:1-40

Issue 4 Foods Offered to Idols 8:1-11:1

Issue 5 Liturgical Aberrations 11:2-34

Issue 6 Misunderstanding of Spiritual Gifts 12:1-14:40

Issue 7 Misunderstanding of Believers' Resurrection 15:1-58

Issue 8 Instruction for the Collection 16:1-11

Concluding topics 16:12-24

HISTORICAL MATRIX FOR THE CORINTHIAN PROBLEMS

Without going into the multifaceted issues about the historical evidence from Acts for Paul's churches and how this relates to the evidence for Paul and his churches from his own letters, it seems prudent to rely initially and primarily upon the evidence of 1 Corinthians itself rather than Luke's material in Acts to understand the nature and extent of the problems in the church at Corinth. To be specific, one must not falsely conclude, on the basis of the Lukan picture of a predominant Jewish matrix of the church in Corinth, that Jewish beliefs and practices provide the matrix for most of the aberrations within the Corinthian church. In this regard, Gordon Fee is correct when he points out that many of the problems at Corinth are explicitly traced by Paul to the converts' pagan heritage. It can be argued, furthermore, that even those issues not explicitly traced to pagan heritage by Paul can be best understood by seeing them against the backdrop of Greco-Roman rather than Jewish mores and values.

The issues depicted in 1 Corinthians arose directly from the lives of that first generation Christian community, most of whom had been believers no more than 48 months. Since Paul nowhere implies in 1 Corinthians that the Corinthian problems were introduced by outsiders, the most reasonable course to follow in evaluating the origin of the Corinthian issues is to investigate the urban setting of Roman Corinth from which the converts came. This means that the religious and cultural perspectives which shaped the beliefs and practices of those whom Paul addressed in this letter provide the best circumstantial evidence and clues for the interpretation of 1 Corinthians.

While the need to recognize the Greco-Roman matrix of the Corinthian problems might seem self-evident, the history of the interpretation of 1 Corinthians clearly reveals that not all interpreters have shared this methodological concern. In practice this approach to 1 Corinthians means that:

1. One must not attribute the Jewishness of Paul and the Scriptural basis of his own theology to those recent converts whom he was correcting. To extract texts and vocabulary from Jewish sources (e.g., Mishnah, Dead Sea Scrolls, Gospels, etc.) to understand the matrix of the Corinthians' problems is highly suspect. The fact that Paul often cites Scripture to remedy the problems at Corinth speaks more of his own Jewish heritage, his apostolic ministry, and his convictions that all Christians are to be guided by Scripture than it does that there was some significant Jewish background to the Corinthian problems.

2. The mores, patterns of culture and specific religious institutions of Greco-Roman paganism must be seen as the soil in which the Corinthian problems were germinated and grew.

3. The specific condition of the Corinth of Paul's day should be taken as the immediate setting for the converts. One must exercise caution in using information about an earlier Greek Corinth which had been destroyed in the second century B.C. and no longer existed in Paul's day in order to describe the Corinth of Paul's day.

4. One must recognize the multicultural nature of Corinth at Paul's time. It was geographically Greek, it was administratively and politically Roman, and its denizens came from throughout the central and eastern parts of the Mediterranean Basin. Consequently, one must reckon with ethnic influences in Paul's Corinth which reflect Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Syrian, Jewish, and Anatolian influences.

5. Vague and anachronistic labels such as gnosticism should be avoided until appropriate historical evidence and documentation can be discovered and shown to be relevant to the issues at Corinth addressed by Paul. A commitment to the notion of a gnostic background to 1 Corinthians still has advocates, though their numbers are surely down from that of the 19th and earlier part of the 20th century. Quite recently, for example, Pheme Perkins argued that

. . . gnostic mythologizing does form part of the horizon within which the New Testament should be interpreted. Students of Christian origins have become accustomed to comparing the New Testament material with a wide variety of Jewish and Greco-Roman sources. The same efforts of analysis and comparison should be applied to the gnostic material.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, L.C.A. "Chronology of Paul." In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters . Ed. G.F. Hawthorne et al. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993, pp. 115-123.

Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment . Library of Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987.

________________ . Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Banks, R. "Church Order and Government." DPL , pp. 131-137.

Barnett, P.W. "Apostle." DPL, pp. 45-51.

________________ . "Opponents of Paul." DPL , pp. 644-653.

________________ . "Revolutionary Movements." DPL , pp. 812-819.

________________ . "Tentmaking." DPL , pp. 925-927.

Barrett, C.K. The First Epistle to the Corinthians . New York: Harper, 1968.

Beasley-Murray, G.R. "Baptism." DPL , pp. 60-66.

Beker, J.C. Paul the Apostle. The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Phliadelphia: Fortress, 1980 .

Belleville, L.L. "Moses." DPL , pp. 620-21.

Black, M. "1 Cor. 11:2-16-A Re-investigation." Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity , Vol. 1. Ed. Carroll D. Osburn. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Co., 1993, pp. 191-218.

Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987 .

Blue, B.B. "Food Offered to Idols and Jewish Food Laws." DPL , pp. 306-310.

________________ . "Apollos." DPL , pp. 37-39.

Bruce, F.F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. London: Butler & Tanner Ltd., 1971.

Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament . 2 vols. Trans. by K. Grobel. New York: Charles Scribners, 1951, 1955.

Calvin, John. The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. Calvin's New Testament Commentaries. Trans. J.W. Fraser, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.

Cantarella, Eva. Pandora's Daughters. The Role and Status of Women in Greek and Roman Antiquity . Trans. M.B. Fant; Foreword by M.R. Lefkowitz. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.

Carson, D.A. Showing the Spirit. A Theological Exposition of I Corinthians 12-14 . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.

Carson, D.A., Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris. Introduction to the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Casson, Lionel. Travel in the Ancient World . Toronto: Hakkert, 1974.

Chamblin, J.K. "Freedom/Liberty." DPL , pp. 313-316.

Chrysostom, Dio. The Eighth Discourse, on Virtue , 9-10. Vol. 1. Trans. by J.W. Cohoon. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949.

Clarke, Andrew D. Secular & Christian Leadership in Corinth. A Socio-Historical & Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6 , Vol. 18. Arbeiten zur Geshichte des Antiken Judentums & des Urchristentums. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993.

Comfort, P.W. "Idolatry." DPL , pp. 424-426.

Conzelmann, Hans. I Corinthians . Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

Cottrell, Jack . Feminism and the Bible: An Introduction to Feminism for Christians. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Co.,1992.

________________ . Gender Roles and the Bible: Creation, the Fall, and Redemption. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Co.,1994.

de Lacey, D.R. "Holy Days." DPL , pp. 402-404.

Donfried, Karl. "Chronology: New Testament." In Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1. Ed. D.N. Freedman, et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992-1994, pp. 1011 & 1022.

Dover, K.J. "Classical Greek Attitudes to Sexual Behaviour." In Women in the Ancient World. The Arethusa Papers . Ed. John Peradotto and J.P. Sullivan. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984.

Ellis, E.E. "Coworkers, Paul and His." DPL , pp. 183-189.

Engels, Donald. Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City . Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1990.

Everts, J.M. "Conversion and Call of Paul." DPL , pp. 156-160.

________________ . "Financial Support." DPL , pp. 295-300.

Fee, Gordon. First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987 .

________________ . God's Empowering Presence. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994 .

________________ . "Gifts of the Spirit." DPL , pp. 339-347.

________________ . New Testament Exegesis . Rev. ed. Louisville: Westminster Press, 1993.

Ferguson, E. Demonology of the Early Christian World . Lewiston, NY: E. Mellin Press, 1984.

________________ . Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993 .

Fitzmyer, J. "A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of 1 Cor. xi.10." New Testament Studies 4 (1957-1958): 48-58.

________________ . "Another Look at KEFALH in 1 Cor. 11.3." NTS 35 (1989): 503-511.

________________ . Paul and His Theology. A Brief Sketch . 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1989.

Fuller, R.M. "Rewards." DPL , pp. 819-820.

Fung, R.Y.K. "Body of Christ." DPL , pp. 76-82.

________________ . "Cursing, Accursed, Anathema." DPL , pp. 199-200.

Furnish, Victor P. "Corinth in Paul's Time - What Can Archaeology Tell Us?" Biblical Archaeology Review 15 (1988): 16-17.

________________ . II Corinthians . Anchor Bible. Vol. 32A. New York: Doubleday, 1984.

________________ . "Theology in First Corinthians." In Pauline Theology . Vol. II: 1 & 2 Corinthians. Ed. David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991 .

Gellius, Aulus. Noctes Atticae 16.13.9. The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius . Vol. 3. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961.

Gill, D.W.J. "The Importance of Roman Portraiture for Head-Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16." Tyndale Bulletin 41 (1990): 245-260 .

Gillespie, Thomas W. The First Theologians. A Study in Early Christian Prophecy . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

Green, J.B. "Death of Christ." DPL , pp. 201-209.

Green, Michael. I Believe in the Holy Spirit . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Guthrie, Donald and Ralph Martin. "God." DPL , pp. 354-369.

Gundry-Volf, Judith M. "Apostasy, Falling Away, Perseverance." DPL , pp. 42-43.

Haacker, Klaus. "Gallio." In ABD. Vol. 2, pp. 901-903.

Hafemann, S.J. "Corinthians, Letters to." DPL , pp. 164-179.

Hansen, G.W. "Rhetorical Criticism." DPL , pp. 822-826.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977 .

Hock, Ronald F. The Social Context of Paul's Ministry. Tentmaking and Apostleship. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.

Hodge, Charles. An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Holladay, Carl. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians. Living Word Commentaries . Vol. 8. Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Company, 1979 .

Hooker, M.D. "Authority on Her Head: An Examination of 1 Cor. XI.10." New Testament Studies. Vol 10 (1963-1964): 410-416.

Horsley, G.H.R. "Invitation to the Kline of Sarapis." New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Vol.1, 1981, pp. 5-9.

Hurd, John C. The Origin of 1 Corinthians. New York: Seabury Press, 1965.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary. New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Kent, John H. Corinth . Vol. VIII, Pt. III. The Inscriptions 1926-1950. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1966.

Kim, S. "Jesus, Sayings of." DPL , pp. 474-492.

Kistemaker, Simon. Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Klein, W.M., C.L. Blomberg, and R.L. Hubbard. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation . Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

Kraemer, Ross S. "Non-literary Evidence for Jewish Women in Rome and Egypt." In Rescuing Creusa. New Methodological Approaches to Women in Antiquity . Ed. M. Skinner. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press, 1987.

Kümmel, W.G. Introduction to the New Testament . Rev. ed. Trans. H.C. Kee. Nashville: Abingdon, 1975.

Lake, Kirsopp. The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul: Their Motive and Origin , p. vii. Cited by John C. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians . New York: Seabury Press, 1965.

Luter, A. B., Jr. "Grace." DPL , pp. 372-374.

MacMullen, Ramsay. Paganism in the Roman Empire . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.

McKnight, S. "Collection for the Saints." DPL , pp. 143-147.

McRay, John. Archaeology and the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Malherbe, A.J. Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook . Ed. W.A. Meeks. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986.

Malick, D.E. "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27." Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (1993) 327-340.

________________ . "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9." Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (1993): 479-492.

Marshall, I.H. "Lord's Supper." DPL , pp. 569-575.

Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians . Word Biblical Commentary, 40. Waco: Word, 1986.

________________ . The Spirit and the Congregation . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Michaels, J.R. "Peter." DPL , pp. 701-703.

Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993 .

Mohrlang, R. "Love." DPL , pp. 575-578.

Morris, Leon. "Sacrifice Offering." DPL , pp. 856-858.

________________ . "Faith." DPL , pp. 285-291.

Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome. St. Paul's Corinth . Text and Archaeology . Good News Studies, 6. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1983.

Nepos, Cornelius. Great General of Foreign Nations. Preface 4. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.

Nock, Arthur Darby. "The Vocabulary of the New Testament." Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933): 131-139.

Noll, S.F. "Qumran and Paul." DPL , pp. 777-783.

O'Brien, Peter T. "Church." DPL , pp. 123-131.

________________ . Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul . Supplements to Novum Testamentum 49. Leiden: E.J. Brill. (1977): 107-137.

________________ . "Letters, Letter Form." DPL , pp. 550-553.

Osburn, Carroll D., Ed. "The Interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34-35." Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity . Vol. 1. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993.

Oster, Richard E., Jr. "Christianity in Asia Minor." In ABD . Vol. 1. Ed. D.N. Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992, pp. 948-949.

________________ . "Use, Misuse and Neglect of Archaeological Evidence in Some Modern Works on 1 Corinthians." Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 83 (1992): 58-67.

________________ . "When Men Wore Veils to Worship." New Testament Studies . Vol. 34. (1988): 481-505.

Osiek, Carolyn. "The Feminist and the Bible: Hermeneutical Alternatives." In Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship . Ed. Adela Y. Collins. Chino, CA: Scholars Press, 1985.

Perkins, Pheme. Gnosticism and the New Testament . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Plass, Ewald M., Ed. What Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian . St. Louis: Concordia, 1991.

Plautus. Curculio 37-38. Trans. by P. Nixon. Loeb Classical Library, 5 vols. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959.

Pliny the Elder. Natural History 28.2(3).10, 11. Translation taken from Jo-Ann Shelton, As the Romans Did: A Source Book in Roman Social History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.

Plutarch. Bravery of Women 249E. Cited by K.O. Wicker. Plutarch's Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978 .

Pomeroy, S.B. Women in Hellenistic Egypt from Alexander to Cleopatra . Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990.

Porter, Stanley. "Holiness, Sanctification." DPL, pp. 397-402.

Reasoner, M. "Citizenship, Roman and Heavenly." DPL , pp. 139-141.

Reese, D.G. "Demons, New Testament." ABD . Vol. 2., 140-142.

Ridderbbos, Herman N. Paul: An Outline of His Theology . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Robeck, C.M., Jr. "Tongues." DPL , pp. 939-943.

Robertson, Archibald and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. The International Critical Commentary. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914.

Sampley, J. Paul. Walking Between the Times. Paul's Moral Reasoning. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.

Sanders, E. P. Judaism. Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE . Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992.

Schmithals, Walther. Gnosticism in Corinth; an investigation of the letters to the Corinthians . Trans. J.E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971.

Scroggs, Robin. The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

________________ . "Paul and the Eschatological Women." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 40. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press (1972): 283-303.

Silva, M. "Old Testament in Paul." DPL , pp. 630-642.

Smith, D. "The Egyptian Cults at Corinth." Harvard Theological Review 70. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press (1977): 201-231.

South, James T. "A Critique of the 'Curse/Death' Interpretation of I Corinthians 5.1-8." New Testament Studies. 39 (1993): 539-561.

Spittler, R.P. Testament of Job. In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha . Vol.1. Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Ed. J.H. Charlesworth. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983.

Stein, R.H. "Jerusalem." DPL , pp. 463-474.

Stuart, Douglas. "Exegesis." ABD . Ed. D.N. Freeman, et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Sumney, Jerry. Identifying Paul's Opponents . Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 40. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990.

Theissen, G. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity . Trans. H. Schütz. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

Towner, P.H. "Household and Household Codes." DPL , pp. 417-419.

Trebilco, P. "Itineraries, Travel Plans, Journeys, Apostolic Parousia." DPL , pp. 446-456.

Vermes, G., Trans. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English . Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1968.

Walters, James. Ethnic Issues in Paul's Letter to the Romans: Changing Self-definitions in Earliest Roman Christianity . Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1993.

West, Allen B. Corinth . Vol. VIII. Pt. II. Latin Inscriptions 1896-1926. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931.

Winter, Bruce. "Rhetoric." DPL , pp. 820-822.

Wiseman, James. "Corinth and Rome I:228 B.C.-A.D. 267." In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt . Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter (1979) II.7.1: 491-496.

Witherington, Ben III. Conflict and Community in Corinth. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Yamauchi, Edwin. Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences . 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

ABD . . . Anchor Bible Dictionary

AUSS . . . Andrews University Seminary Studies

BA . . . Biblical Archaeology

BAGD . . . Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker

BAR . . . Biblical Archaeology Review

BiblThecSac . . . Bibliotheca Sacra

BJRL . . . Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

BTr . . . Bible Translator

CMM . . . Introduction to the New Testament by Carson, Moo, L. Morris

ChrSt . . . Christian Standard

DPL . . . Dictionary of Paul and His Letters

ed. . . . edited by

EQ . . . Evangelical Quarterly

ExpT . . . Expository Times

HTR . . . Harvard Theological Review

JBL . . . Journal of Biblical Literature

JSNT . . . Journal of Studies in the New Testament

JETS . . . Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JTS . . . Journal of Theological Studies

n. . . . note

NovT . . . Novum Testamentum

NTS . . . New Testament Studies

RevEx . . . Review and Expositor

TB . . . Tyndale Bulletin

TDNT . . . Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TS . . . Theological Studies

trans . . . translated by

WThJ . . . Westminster Theological Journal

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: 1 Corinthians (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. INTRODUCTION - 1:1-9

A. Salutation - 1:1-3

B. Thanksgiving - 1:4-9

II. DISUNITY AND COMMUNITY FRAGMENTATION - 1:10-4:21

A. Divisions in the Church - 1:10-17

1. Report Received by Paul - 1:10-12

2. Christ Undivided - 1:13-17

B. Christ the Wisdom and Power of God - 1:18-2:5

1. The Message of the Cross - 1:18-19

2. Both Jews and Gentiles Offended - 1:20-25

3. God's Choice of Foolish Things - 1:26-31

4. Paul's Message Not Based on Eloquence - 2:1-5

C. Wisdom and Spiritual Maturity - 2:6-3:4

1. God's Secret Wisdom - 2:6-9

2. The Teaching of the Spirit - 2:10-16

3. Divisions a Sign of Worldliness - 3:1-4

D. God the Master Builder - 3:5-23

1. Paul and Apollos Merely Servants - 3:5-9

2. Building on the Foundation Laid by Paul - 3:10-17

3. God's View of Wisdom - 3:18-23

E. Apostles of Christ - 4:1-21

1. The Apostles as Servants of Christ - 4:1-5

2. Overcoming Human Pride - 4:6-7

3. Honor and Dishonor - 4:8-13

4. Paul's Warning as Father - 4:14-17

5. Arrogance to Be Confronted - 4:18-21

III. REPORTS OF IMMORALITY - 5:1-6:20

A. Discipline for the Immoral Brother - 5:1-13

1. The Corinthians' Pride in Tolerance - 5:1-5

2. Getting Rid of the Old Yeast - 5:6-8

3. Separating From Evil - 5:9-13

B. Lawsuits among Believers - 6:1-11

1. Settling Disputes in the Church - 6:1-8

2. The Inheritance of the Wicked - 6:9-11

C. Sexual Immorality - 6:12-20

1. The Body As a Member of Christ- 6:12-17

2. The Body As the Temple of the Holy Spirit - 6:18-20

IV. SEXUALITY, CELIBACY, AND MARRIAGE - 7:1-40

A. Godly Use of Sexuality - 7:1-7

B. Celibacy vs. Marriage - 7:8-11

C. Divorce and Separation - 7:12-16

D. Remaining as You Were Called - 7:17-28

E. Freedom from Concern - 7:29-40

V. DEALING WITH IDOLATRY - 8:1-11:1

A. Food Sacrificed to Idols - 8:1-13

1. The General Principle - 8:1-3

2. The Nonreality of Idols - 8:4-6

3. The Weak Brother's Dilemma - 8:7-8

4. The Proper Use of Freedom - 8:9-13

B. The Rights of an Apostle - 9:1-27

1. Paul's Rights as Apostle - 9:1-6

2. General Principle Stated - 9:7-14

3. Paul's Deferment of Rights - 9:15-18

4. To the Jew as a Jew - 9:19-23

5. Looking Forward to the Prize - 9:24-27

C. Warnings From Israel's History - 10:1-13

1. Wandering in the Desert - 10:1-5

2. Punishment for Sins - 10:6-10

3. Examples for Us - 10:11-13

D. Idol Feasts and the Lord's Supper - 10:14-22

1. The Lord's Supper a Participation - 10:14-17

2. The Lord's Table and the Table of Demons - 10:18-22

3. The Christian's Freedom - 10:23-11:1

VI. LITURGICAL ABERRATIONS - 11:2-34

A. Propriety in Worship - 11:2-16

1. Head Coverings in Worship - 11:2-10

2. Hair in the Nature of Things - 11:11-16

B. The Lord's Supper - 11:17-34

1. The Corinthians' Practice - 11:17-22

2. The Lord's Supper As Instituted - 11:23-26

3. Self-examination to Avoid Judgment - 11:27-34

VII. MISUNDERSTANDING OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS - 12:1-14:40

A. Spiritual Gifts - 12:1-11

1. Influence of the Spirit - 12:1-3

2. Different Gifts for a Common Good - 12:4-11

B. One Body, Many Parts - 12:12-31a

1. One Body in Christ - 12:12-13

2. Body Members Not Independent - 12:14-20

3. Special Honor for Weaker Parts - 12:21-26

4. Application to the Body of Christ - 12:27-31a

C. Love - 12:31b-13:13

1. Gifts Without Love Pointless - 12:31b-13:3

2. The Virtues of Love - 13:4-7

3. The Permanence of Love - 13:8-13

D. Gifts of Prophecy and Tongues - 14:1-25

1. Tongues and Prophecy Compared - 14:1-5

2. Tongues and Clarity - 14:6-12

3. The Spirit and the Mind - 14:13-19

4. Maturity and Spiritual Gifts - 14:20-25

E. Orderly Worship - 14:26-40

1. Control of Tongues and Prophecy - 14:26-33

2. Submission of Women - 14:34-35

3. Everything Fitting and Orderly - 14:36-40

VIII. MISUNDERSTANDING OF BELIEVERS' RESURRECTION - 15:1-58

A. The Gospel Paul Preached - 15:1-11

1. Relation of the Corinthians to the Gospel - 15:1-2

2. Basic Issues of the Gospel - 15:3-4

3. Appearances and Apostleship - 15:5-11

B. Christ's Resurrection and the Resurrection

of the Dead - 15:12-34

1. Consequences of Denying the Resurrection - 15:12-19

2. The Fact of Christ's Resurrection - 15:20-28

3. Baptism, Suffering, and the Resurrection - 15:29-34

C. Answers to Some Problems about the

Resurrection - 15: 35-58

1. A Twofold Question - 15:35-41

2. An Explanation of the Resurrection of the Dead - 15:42-50

3. The Secret Revealed - 15:51-58

IX. INSTRUCTION FOR THE COLLECTION - 16:1-11

A. The Collection for God's People - 16:1-4

B. Paul's Travel Plans - 16:5-9

C. Assisting Timothy - 16:10-11

X. CONCLUSION - 16:12-24

A. Personal Requests - 16:12-18

B. Final Greetings - 16:19-24

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV