BIG IDEA:
MEMBERS OF THE ONE BODY OF CHRIST CAN HAVE NO ASSOCIATION WITH IDOLATRY (FALSE RELIGION)
INTRODUCTION:
Paul continues his general discussion about the propriety of believers eating meats offered to idols. This was the subject introduced back in 8:1 “Now concerning things sacrificed to idols.” The context in this paragraph (10:14-21) relates to participation or at the least association with the culture of false, man-made worship. Instead of actively confronting the evil and the contradictions to biblical truth and practice, the individual adopts a very careless and ecumenical spirit of indifference towards the upholding of truth regarding the One True God. Christianity is a narrow, exclusivist approach to the worship of God. We need Paul’s strong admonition here to “Flee from idolatry.” Once we understand the danger of the demonic activity behind false religions and the jealousy we will provoke from a holy and powerful God we should act sensibly in this area.
Gordon Fee: In a way similar to a preceding argument (6:12–20, esp. v. 18), Paul finally asserts an absolute prohibition against idolatry (v. 14). Then in an appeal to their good sense (v. 15) he explains from their own experience of the Lord’s Table (vv. 16–17) and from the OT sacred meals (v. 18) that the same realities carry over to the pagan meals (vv. 19–20), which therefore makes participation in one meal absolutely incompatible with participation in the other (v. 21). All of which ends on the rhetorical note that, just as with Israel’s idolatry (v. 9), by their current behavior they are “testing” Christ, provoking him to jealousy (v. 22).
The basis of Paul’s prohibition is twofold:
(1) His understanding of the sacred meal as “fellowship,” as the unique sharing of believers in the worship of the deity, who was also considered to be present;
(2) His understanding, based on the OT, of idolatry as a locus of the demonic.
It should be noted that these two bases for the prohibition bring closure to the two basic arguments from their letter:
(1) that, since an idol is not real, not only is it of little consequence what we eat, but where should be of no concern as well, and
(2) that as long as we participate in our own sacred meal, we remain secure in Christ.
In the preliminary qualification of the content of their knowledge (8:4–6), Paul had allowed that for the pagans there are “many gods and many lords,” and that for some, these “gods” still had some measure of subjective reality. Now he asserts that they do have reality indeed, but not as “gods”; rather, these “deities” are in fact the habitation of demons. In the immediately preceding argument (vv. 1–13), Paul had pointed out on the basis of the divinely established example of Israel that there is no inherent safety in the sacraments. Now he moves beyond that to demonstrate the absolute incompatibility of eating both sacred meals. The kind of “fellowship” involved eliminates any such possibility.
David Garland: Paul’s insistence on exclusive loyalty to a religion was something uncommon in paganism. People were accustomed to joining in the sacrificial meals of various deities, none of which required an exclusive relationship (see Walter 1978–79: 429–30; Willis 1985b: 213; Smit 1997a: 48). The Hellenistic world was a great religious melting pot, and tolerance and syncretism reflected the spirit of the times. The Greeks and, later, the Romans were very tolerant in their attitude toward the kaleidoscope of other religions and cultures. They understood that every nation had its own ancestral traditions, its own temples and gods, and that worship of these gods was a part of everyday life. For practical reasons, the Romans did not want to alienate the regional deities within the empire and did not insist that everyone worship Roman gods alone. For theoretical reasons, traditional local deities were left alone because the intellectual elite assumed that the gods of Rome, Greece, Egypt, Asia, Judea, and Persia were symbolic representatives of an ultimate ground of being. They basically said, “You may continue to worship your gods and goddesses; we will worship them as well and you can worship ours. That way, no one’s gods will be slighted.” This openness to other gods is reflected in the altar to an unknown god in Athens (Acts 17:23), which offered homage to whatever god the people may have neglected to honor. The relative disinterest in doctrine and the utilitarian interest in the power of individual gods to deliver a desired outcome also mitigated the potential for any theological friction.
Most people honored gods whom they thought were useful. Some believed that there was “safety in numbers” and worshiped a smorgasbord of deities. The more gods that were honored, the better their chance of success in life. Paul radically rejects all such syncretism and anything that might even hint of it. His attempt to convince the Corinthians that the Christian’s fellowship with Christ restricted them from any association with other gods was not an easy task. Christian parents who have had to forbid their teenage children from attending something that the parents recognize as fundamentally opposed to Christian values may best understand the difficulty. How do they explain to the children why they may not participate when all their friends are going and they will be left out and perhaps ostracized?
Paul attempts to make his case by arguing from the Lord’s Supper. Because mention of the Lord’s Supper is rare in Paul’s letters, this passage has been milked for every ounce of information that it might offer about his theology and practice. It should not be forgotten that Paul brought it up only as part of his argument against idol food. He worries about the danger of “serial fellowships.” The Supper of the one Lord, which unites participants to him, excludes eating idol offerings, which unites participants to idols and their demons (Smit 1997a: 48). As the Lord’s Supper is a sacred meal that represents and creates a fellowship of believers in the worship of Christ, who is considered to be present, so pagan meals represent and create a fellowship of worshipers of pagan deities who also are considered to be present. Idols, however, represent the realm of the demonic. Participating in the one meal precludes participating in the other. In 10:14–17, Paul develops the theological significance of participating in the Lord’s Supper (cf. 10:1–5). In 10:18–20, he develops the theological significance of participation in pagan sacrificial meals (cf. 10:6–10). He draws the conclusion in 10:21–22 that participation in the Lord’s Supper bars participation in pagan sacrificial meals in any form. Believers should not fool themselves into thinking that they are strong enough to try to merge the two meals, to affiliate with Christ and demons. To attempt to do so only kindles the jealousy and judgment of God.
Daniel Akin: Main Idea: Avoid idolatry and practices that bring you near idols, knowing that demonic activity promotes them.
I. Communion with the Lord Is Essential (10:14-17).
A. We are to flee idolatry (10:14-15).
B. We are to fellowship with our Savior (10:16-17).
C. The cup emphasizes our communion (10:16).
D. The bread emphasizes our union (10:17).
II. Association with Demons Is Evil (10:18-22).
A. It distorts our worship (10:18-20).
B. It compromises our loyalty (10:21).
C. It provokes our God (10:22).
I. (:14-15) THE COMMAND – FLEE IDOLATRY –KEEP YOUR DISTANCE FROM FALSE RELIGIONS
Picture getting sucked into the fast-flowing current and tumbling over a waterfall
A. (:14) Separation from Idolatry Must be a Top Priority
- Separation from Idolatry is Essential to our Faith and our Testimony
“Therefore” — connective to previous sections in chaps. 9-10
Robert Gundry: “Therefore” harks back to God’s providing an escape route from temptation as a basis for the following command. “Indeed” stresses the availability of the escape route.
Richard Hays: Sometimes 10:14–22 is treated as a separate pericope, but it really should not be so considered, for it continues to draw out the immediate practical implications of the wilderness story.
a. Connection to our own endurance in the faith
b. Connection to our testimony to win many to Christ
- Separation from Idolatry Presupposes a Loving Family Connection within the Body of Christ
“my beloved”
Charles Hodge: Paul addresses them in terms of affection, although his epistle is so full of serious admonition and warning.
- Separation from Idolatry Involves Immediate and Drastic Action
“flee from idolatry”
Robert Gundry: His command to “flee away from idolatry” recalls the command in 6:18 to “flee fornication,” which often accompanied idolatry, and like that earlier command uses the hyperbolic verb “flee,” as though because of the strong pull of temptation and the likely consequence of yielding to it you should run away from occasions and places of idolatry and fornication, not just avoid them.
a. Must be able to Identify False Religions
b. Must Respond Aggressively and Urgently
B. (:15) Separation from Idolatry Should Make Sense to Believers
- Separation from Idolatry is the Path of Wisdom
“I speak as to wise men”
This issue is not an easy one; not for the immature; requires great wisdom to sort out how to conduct oneself
- Separation from Idolatry is the Path of Discernment
“you judge what I say.”
Where are the people of discernment today? Believers are so easily duped. Have we developed our critical thinking skills under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
R.C.H. Lenski: The questions which Paul now asks bring out the vital facts. All of them are plain, and all of them are undisputed. On the basis of these Paul wants the Corinthians to make a definite decision on their own account. Sensible Christian people will not only at once give the self-evident answers to these questions but will also perceive the force of these answers as far as conduct is concerned.
Gordon Fee: The preceding prohibition (v. 14) is both abrupt and absolute. Now Paul seeks to show them how sensible it is, based on their own experience of the Lord’s Table. Since the Corinthians had prided themselves in their understanding of things, and surely had intimated as much in their letter to him, Paul allows: “I speak as to sensible people.” Although he had earlier used this same language in biting irony (4:10), it seems less likely that he intends it so here. Similar to an earlier instance (5:3) the “as” refers to an actual reality, not a merely hypothetical one. Since they are sensible people by their own admission, he chooses here, as he will again later (in 11:13 and 14:20), to appeal to them as such: “judge for yourselves what I say,” meaning in this case, “what I am about to say.” But he does not mean “judge for yourselves” as to its rightness or wrongness. They are to judge for themselves that their apostle is right!
David Garland: Paul truly believes that they are perceptive enough to see the illogic of their behavior and to discern the truth, so he presents a reasoned argument (Edwards 1885: 252; Findlay 1910: 863; Parry 1926: 150; Conzelmann 1975: 171 n. 12; Willis 1985b: 183; Fee 1987: 464–65; Smit 1997a: 49). In 10:16–22, he asks seven rhetorical questions inviting their thoughtful response. He tries to persuade because it would do no good to coerce the “knowers” to stop fraternizing with idolaters in idolatrous settings — except that it might avert the weak from falling into ruin — if they do not recognize and accept in their hearts and minds how and why it is wrong. In the end, however, what counts is not just what they can understand but also their willingness to be faithful to Christ no matter the cost.
II. (:16-21) THE CONTRAST — UNDERSTAND THAT PARTICIPATION INVOLVES IDENTIFICATION
A. (:16-18) Positive Example of Identification with the True God
- (:16-17) NT Example – Centering around the Lord’s Supper
a. Sharing in the Blood of Christ
“Is not the cup of blessing which we bless
a sharing in the blood of Christ?”
David Garland: The emphasis on the blood of Christ sharpens the seriousness of the covenantal relationship to Christ. Blood seals a covenant (see Gen. 15:9–18; Exod. 24:3–8; Zech. 9:11; Heb. 9:18). The “fellowship of his blood” (1 Cor. 10:16) parallels the explanation of the cup in 11:25 as the new covenant in his blood. Willis (1985b: 218) claims, “What is decisive about the sacrifice of Jesus is that it created a new covenant between God and man (1 Cor. 11:21) and a resulting community of faith.” Breaching this covenant can have only calamitous consequences.
b. Sharing in the Body of Christ
“Is not the bread which we break
a sharing in the body of Christ?”
Gordon Fee: The “fellowship,” therefore, was most likely a celebration of their common life in Christ, based on the new covenant in his blood that had previously bound them together in union with Christ by his Spirit. But while their “fellowship” was with one another, its basis and focus were in Christ, his death and resurrection; they were thus together in his presence, where as host at his table Christ shared anew with them the benefits of the atonement. It is this unique relationship between believers and with their Lord, celebrated at this meal, that makes impossible similar associations with other “believers” at the tables of demons. In this passage the cup seems to focus on the vertical dimension, the bread on the horizontal (cf. v. 21).
c. Unity in One Body
“Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body;
for we all partake of the one bread.”
- (:18) OT Example – Centering around the Sacrifices
“Look at the nation Israel;
are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar?”
B. (:19-21) Negative Example of Identification with the Demons Behind False Religions
- (:19) Don’t Miss the Point of the Contrast – Not talking about Inanimate Objects
“What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything,
or that an idol is anything?”
- (:20) Participation in False Religion Involves Identification with the Demons
Behind the Idols – Talking about very real and very powerful evil spirits
“No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice,
they sacrifice to demons and not to God;
and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.”
Gil Rugh: “Gentiles” not in the earlier texts
John Piper: So here is the key word again: sharers. What does it mean? Again it does not mean that we eat demons when we eat meat offered to idols. It means that we get entangled in their power. We submit to them. We become vulnerable to them. We enter into some kind of fellowship. We affirm them in some way and give them leeway in our lives.
Robert Gundry: The sharing of demons means that the eating of food known to have been sacrificed to idols represents an acceptance of the demons’ life-destroying activity in the world just as the drinking and eating of the Christ’s blood and body represent an acceptance of the life-saving benefits of his sacrificial death.
Gordon Fee: Paul’s point is simple: These pagan meals are in fact sacrifices to demons; the worship of demons is involved. One who is already bound to one’s Lord and to one’s fellow believers through participation at the Lord’s Table cannot under any circumstances also participate in the worship of demons. That point will be made explicit in the parallel sentences that follow.
David Garland: The problem for Paul is not that Corinthian Christians join in camaraderie with idolaters but that they become actual partners with demons. However innocent the Christians’ intentions might be, the result is that they give their assent to, collaborate with, and swell the ranks of demonic defiance of the sovereign God. They may think that they are simply joining a festive party, but in reality they are joining a party infested by Satan and forming an alliance with those who crucified the Son of God (2:8). They cannot dismiss these meals as simply a casual, meaningless social repast any more than they can dismiss a sexual relationship with a prostitute as a casual, meaningless tryst (cf. 6:15–20). If God’s pattern revealed in Scripture holds true, they will provoke God to jealousy, who will turn away from them, and they will be destroyed as a perverse generation.
- (:21) Identification with the Lord is Mutually Exclusive from Idolatry
a. The Cup of the Lord vs. the Cup of Demons
“You cannot drink the cup of the Lord
and the cup of demons”
b. The Table of the Lord vs the Table of Demons
“You cannot partake of the table of the Lord
and the table of demons.”
Robert Gundry: “The Christ” of 10:16 changes to “the Lord” for emphasis on his authority, which makes provoking him to jealousy dangerous and his judging us irresistible. But jealousy implies love in addition to lordship. “You can’t” connotes incompatibility. This incompatibility is so sharp as to provoke jealousy because the Christ as Lord bought us at a price (6:20; 7:23), therefore owns us as his slaves, and demands our turning from demonic idols to serve him alone (compare 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10). “Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy?” puts forward an alternative to the two instances of “You can’t . . . .” That is to say, though you can’t compatibly participate in the Lord’s Supper and a supper of demons, you can actually participate in both—but only at the expense of provoking the Lord to jealousy (compare Hebrews 3:7–11; Psalm 95:7–11; Deuteronomy 32:21a–b).
David Prior: Paul still affirms the nonentity, the unreality, of idols as such; but he equally affirms that behind all idolatry is demonic activity: what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God (20). There is only one true God, anyway, and idolaters have no time, desire or ability to worship him. But they are creatures with the capacity and the inner drive to worship when they focus this worship on ‘beings that by nature are not gods’ (Gal. 4:8). Paul’s own conviction is that the spiritual truth of such a situation is that such people offer their sacrifices to demons (20), are partners with demons (20), drink the cup of demons (21) and partake of the table of demons (21) – and as a result share in the ‘benefits’ of such fellowship. Christians, therefore, who become involved in idolatrous feasts are exposing themselves and the Christian community to demons.
III. (:22) THE CAVEAT – PROVOKING GOD WOULD BE A SERIOUS MISTAKE — FEAR THE JEALOUS, OMNIPOTENT GOD
Very solemn warning – Don’t mess with God – He is extremely jealous and powerful
A. Don’t Mess with a God Who is Extremely Jealous
“Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?”
B. Don’t Mess with a God Who is Extremely Powerful
“We are not stronger than He, are we?”
David Garland: The question again recalls an OT motif contrasting the mighty God with frail humans (cf. Job 9:32; 37:23; Eccles. 6:10; Isa. 10:15; Ezek. 22:14), but the background that specifically connects the motif of God’s strength and jealousy to idolatry is primary (Num. 14:13–35; Deut. 32). Rosner (1994: 201) notes, “All Pentateuchal references to God’s jealousy have to do with idol-worship.” Paul concludes his application of the OT texts to the Corinthian situation by reminding them that idols provoke God’s jealousy (Deut. 6:14–15; Josh. 24:19–20; Ps. 78:58–64; Zeph. 1:18). He takes for granted that God’s attitude toward idolatry has not changed with the coming of Christ. The OT paradigm reveals that association with anything idolatrous will meet with God’s swift and irrevocable retribution. Rosner (1994: 202) correctly reads this climax to Paul’s argument in 1 Cor. 10:1–22 as a “frightening threat of judgment upon those Corinthian Christians who provoke God to jealousy.” The command to flee idolatry in 10:14 is capped off balefully with an implicit threat in 10:22: Flee idolatry—or else.
Gordon Fee: Most likely this is the final warning that God’s “jealousy” cannot be challenged with impunity. Those who would put God to the test by insisting on their right to what Paul insists is idolatry are in effect taking God on, challenging him by their actions, daring God to act. Secure in their own foolhardiness, they think of themselves as so “strong” that they can challenge Christ himself (cf. Isa. 45:9–10). But their folly, implied in an earlier exhortation (9:25) and given in the preceding warning (10:12), is that they will thereby fail to gain the final eschatological prize. In any event, the question calls for “an emphatic negative response.”
Warren Wiersbe: “Are we stronger than he?” (1 Cor. 10:22) is directed at the strong Christian who was sure he could enjoy his liberty in the pagan temple and not be harmed. “You may be stronger than your weaker brother,” Paul intimated, “but you are not stronger than God!” It is dangerous to play with sin and tempt God. (Be Wise, 94)