§28 Directions against Idolatry (1 Cor. 10:14–22)
Paul returns here to the topics he dealt with in 8:1–13. There he touched on two related items, eating meat from idol sacrifices and participating in pagan cultic banquets. At this point, however, Paul reverses the order of his discussion and takes up the Christians’ eating at the table in a pagan idol’s temple in 10:14–22 before returning to the issue of eating idol meat per se in 10:23–11:1. In the present verses Paul elaborates and makes even more explicit application of his warning to the Corinthians. The argument is a pastiche of images and metaphors that challenges the imagination of the readers, although Paul’s essential line of thought is unambiguous.
10:14 / As he begins this new segment of reflections, one sees in Paul’s first word in this section, Therefore (or better, “On account of”; Gk. dioper), that Paul understands himself to be building on his preceding remarks and inferring conclusions in relation to them. He tells the Corinthians to flee from idolatry. This unequivocal instruction could stand alone, if the situation in Corinth were as clear as the injunction; but apparently Paul perceives confusion, for he continues to press his point with illustrative arguments from the life and the religious world of the community.
10:15 / This verse stands independently as an explanatory comment. One may read the remark in conjunction with what Paul has said to this point, or one may understand that he is indicating the reasonable nature of what he is about to say. Perhaps, however, the comment is a bridge that looks both backward and forward to all the elements of the current discussion that began in 8:1 and continues at least through 11:1. Paul’s general contention is that sensible people ought to recognize and agree with his observations and instructions. (See Additional Notes on the word sensible.)
10:16–17 / Paul states in eucharistic metaphors (cup/ blood; bread/body; one loaf/one body) the unified nature of Christian life. The behavior of certain of the Corinthians relates to the religious reality that the entire community experiences. What some of the Corinthians do is understood by Paul to have implications for and an effect on the life of the congregation. Paul will discuss the problematic matter of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in detail in chapter 11, but here he refers to that practice and draws conclusions for the life of the community from the elements of celebration. There is no hint at this juncture of a problem with the community’s observation of the Supper; rather, what Paul assumes that they all know and believe is the foundation of his corrections and directions to those who are stepping outside the boundaries of the life of the community to participate in pagan festivities. As the reader knows from Paul’s letter up to this point, some of the Corinthians object to such participation in pagan ceremonies while others who join in the activities deny there is anything wrong with their actions.
Paul’s eucharistic images argue for the unity of the community at both the vertical and the horizontal level of theological reality. First, the Christians in Corinth are united in a powerful and mysterious manner with their Lord Jesus Christ in the celebrations: the cup of thanksgiving … participation … the blood of Christ and the bread that we break … participation … the body of Christ. Paul declares rather than explains this union between the believers and the Lord, apparently underlining a conviction that would have gained ready acknowledgment from the Corinthians. Second, the Corinthians are united with one another through their mutual participation in the celebration: one loaf … we, who are many … one body. Thus, in and through and because of their collective observance of the Lord’s Supper, the Corinthians are united with one another despite their very real human differences. In other words, because Christ is Lord—as the Lord’s Supper celebrates—Christ’s people are one in the power of his lordship.
10:18 / To further develop his objection against the inappropriateness of Christian participation in pagan cultic celebrations, Paul draws an analogy to Israel in order to identify the demonic forces associated with pagan religion and sacrificial food (vv. 18–20). This particular argument is a kind of historical proof for Paul’s point. Because the modern reader may be unfamiliar with the practices Paul discusses, it is possible to miss his point. In brief, he observes that the priests of Israel partake of the substances sacrificed on the altar to the one true God; and so, in a real physical way they engage in a communion with God when they attend to his altar.
10:19 / Even Paul must recognize that the reader may fail to grasp his logic, for he asks literally, “What, then, do I mean?” (NIV: Do I mean then that …?). Not wanting the readers to misunderstand, Paul provides a rhetorical question (v. 19) and an answer (v. 20) that make clear that an idol is not anything. Some in Corinth hold the gods to be real and for that reason object to the participation of others in pagan cultic meals. Those who eat justify their eating in pagan ritual settings because they think that the pagan gods are unreal. Paul steps into that debate at this point with rhetorical deliberateness.
10:20 / Paul answers his own rhetorical question, Is an idol anything? with a strong adversative, No! (Gk. alla). Yet, that answer does not lead him to take the side of those who see no harm in eating in pagan cultic locations. Apparently Paul thought that idol worship was not purely idle activity. He refers to the sacrifices of pagans to idols as being offered to demons. This comment is not a full-blown exposition on the demonic, nor is it possible to understand exactly what Paul believed a demon to be, although his thought here is in perfect line with OT passages that identify pagan gods as demons and condemn such sacrifices (see Exod. 22:20; 32:8; Deut. 28:64; 32:17; Ps. 106:36–37).
Paul’s general perceptions and beliefs about the demonic are not clear from this statement, although there is no reason to conclude that he doubted the existence of demons. Nevertheless, scholarly discussions on this verse that enter into denial or defense of the reality of the demonic are off the point. Paul is juxtaposing two levels of concern, two loyalties, and two powers. One power is the power of God manifested in a clear and ultimate form in Jesus Christ, and the other is labeled demons. Paul states plainly that the Corinthian Christians are to be concerned with and involved with only God. There is no room for other affiliations, and the Corinthians are to avoid all possible compromises of their relationship to God.
10:21 / In turn, Paul forcefully declares the exclusive nature of Christian life in general images from the Lord’s Supper. These images were introduced in verses 16–17 in Paul’s argument concerning the union of the believers with Christ and with one another in Christ, but here Paul puts the figures of the cup and the table to another use. The Christians are confronted with an either/or: either they are going to be involved with and devoted to the Lord, or they are going to compromise themselves—no matter how innocently—with demons. As Paul reads the situation in Corinth, compromising concerns do not integrate well with total devotion to Christ; inappropriate actions jeopardize the believers’ relationship to the Lord.
10:22 / Finally, Paul instructs the Corinthians through two rhetorical questions, informing them that their behavior—which is presented as an insistent practice of their personal freedom—may and does provoke God. In raising these questions, Paul contrasts human and divine strength in a way that issues an indirect threat.
10:14 / While Paul’s concern in this general segment of the letter focuses explicitly on idol meat—eating it privately and eating it in the context of the pagan cultic setting—he now declares his concern with idolatry per se. Paul crosses a line that he had not previously drawn, suggesting that his concern with idol meat in all contexts was that the Corinthians would lapse into idolatry. Otherwise, it is hard to comprehend this turn in the discussion.
10:15 / Paul’s remark is not casual. The imperative form of this statement insists that the Corinthians examine and decide what is appropriate in their situation. Moreover, Paul plainly tells them what they should and should not do. By referring to the Corinthians as sensible people, Paul both confronts the members of the congregation and makes an appeal. The word “sensible” in Gk. (phronimos) connotes the ideas of “thoughtful” and “wise,” and it occurred in the sarcastic comment in 4:10, “you are so wise in Christ” (see also Rom. 11:25; 12:16; 2 Cor. 11:19). Here the sarcasm is less pronounced, but given the pattern of Paul’s usage of this word, probably present. Paul’s declaration indicates that the wisdom he trusts is not merely human judgment, but the sensibleness of Christ. Pondering Paul’s words “in Christ” will result in thoughtful decision and wise action among the Corinthians, who were failing in such activity at the time Paul wrote them.
10:16 / The way in which Paul constructs the lines of this verse is instructive. (1) The grammatical form of Paul’s rhetorical questions—which are also real—assumes the answer “Yes!” (2) Paul assumes the communal nature of the traditional celebration of the Lord’s Supper in v. 16 before dwelling explicitly on the unity of the community in v. 17. (3) The phrase cup of thanksgiving is sometimes translated “cup of blessing.” Linguists identify these words as having a “clear Semitic ring” (Orr and Walther, 1 Corinthians, p. 25) and from this characteristic of the language suggest that Paul specifically had either the second, the third, or the final cup of the Passover meal in mind. The phrase does have a liturgical tone and may reflect traditional material from either Judaism or early Christian practice. Nevertheless, this vivid wording only colors Paul’s remarks at this point; it does not communicate the substance of his concern. (Cf. P. Sigal, “Another Note on 1 Corinthians 10:16,” NTS 29 [1983], pp. 134–39; and Fee, Epistle, pp. 467–68.)
Furthermore, the word translated as participation in this verse is the Gk. work koinōnia, which is often translated “communion” or “fellowship.” This is noteworthy, since in the next verse the verb “partake” occurs, but it comes from a completely different root/stem in Gk. Thus, there is no verbal connection between participation in v. 16 and “partake” in v. 17, although in v. 18 a related form of the koinōn- word group lies behind the word “those who … participate” (Gk. koinōnoi—lit. “participating ones”). See W. A. Sebothoma, “Koinōnia in 1 Corinthians 10:16,” Neot 24 (1990), pp. 63–69.
10:17 / The verb partake is metechō in Gk. and means “to have with” something. The language about the partaking of one loaf by the one body anticipates the careful reflections of Paul that will follow in chs. 11–12.
10:18 / Paul’s words, Consider the people of Israel, are “Look at Israel according to the flesh” (Gk. Blepete ton Israēl kata sarka). Paul is fond of the phrase “according to the flesh,” and while he uses it to speak of historic Israel at this point, he often sets flesh over against spirit or even the cross (see Rom. 1:3; 4:1; 8:4, 5, 12, 13; 9:3, 5; 1 Cor. 1:26; 2 Cor. 1:17; 5:16 [2x]; 10:2, 3; 11:18; Gal. 4:23, 29; and Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22). In essence Paul is pointing here to the theologically correct practices of Israel in the context of the world (the present evil age) independent of the Christ event. His comments assume some kind of theological, though not practical, continuity between the altar services to God and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The OT materials underlying Paul’s discussion are found in Lev. 7 and Deut. 12–18, esp. 18.
The reference to participation in the altar is a typical, pious ancient Jewish circumlocution for God, whose name is avoided by mention of a clearly affiliated item. It is remarkable that Paul lapses into such circumlocutions when he enters into discussion of Jewish practices. This small bit of language is evidence of Paul’s former life in Judaism.
10:19 / Regarding this verse and the following one, Conzelmann (1 Corinthians, p. 172) remarks, “The thoughts tumble over each other.”
10:20 / Watson (First Epistle, pp. 105–6) offers helpful remarks about the difficult matter of “demons” and “worldviews.” He recognizes contemporary authors who take various positions on the question of the demonic and correctly notes that such discussions are better conducted in another context than the reading of this portion of Paul’s letter. Watson identifies different positions, but he does not venture one himself. One may wish for more, but Watson is wise not to clutter commentary on 1 Corinthians with a complex excursus on demons. An additional word of warning is necessary: Attempts to reconcile or harmonize first-century and postmodern worldviews are unwise and probably impossible. The right and wrong of the reality of demons ultimately has no effect on Paul’s central theological contention that Christian faith and practice are incompatible with soft religious syncretism.
10:21 / When Paul writes, You cannot drink … you cannot have a part, he more literally and emphatically says, “You are not able to drink … to have a part …” (Gk. ou dynasthe … pinein … ou dynasthe … metechein …). Paul understands this behavior to be outside the boundaries of power granted to the believers by God; he is not simply concerned with can and cannot, but with may and may not. God does not authorize this activity.
10:22 / The grammatical form of Paul’s rhetorical and real questions anticipates a resounding “No!” for an answer. The question itself reflects OT thought about idolatry and God’s jealousy, e.g., Deut. 32 (see B. S. Rosner, “ ‘Stronger Than He?’ The Strength of 1 Corinthians 10:22b,” TynB 43 [1992], pp. 171–79).