18. Behold Israel after tlie flesli : are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar ?
Israel after the fleshy i. e. the Jews, as a nation, as distin- guished from Israel 'o/ifer the Sjnrit, or the spiritual Israel or true people of God. As Israel was a favourite term of honour, Paul rarely uses it for the Jews as a people without some such qualification. Comp. Rom. 2, 28. 9, 8. Gal. 4, 29. 6, 16.
Are not they ichich eat of the sacrifices. With the Jews, as with other nations, only a portion of most sacrifices was consumed upon the altar ; the residue was divided between the priest and the offerer. Lev. 7, 15. .8, 31, Deut. 12,18. To eat of the sacrifices in the way prescribed in the Law of Moses, was to take part in the whole sacrificial service. " Thou must eat them before the Lord thy God, in the place Avhich the Lord thy God shall choose." Deut. 12, 18. Therefore the apostle says that those who eat of the sacrifices are partakers of the altar / that is, they are in communion with it. They become worshippers of the God to whom the altar is dedi- cated. This is the import and the effect of joining in these sacrificial feasts. The question is not as to the intention of the actors, but as to the import of the act, and as to the inter- pretation universally put upon it. To partake of a Jewish sacrifice as a sacrifice and in a holy place, was an act of Jewish worship. By parity of reasoning, to partake of a heathen sacrifice as a sacrifice, and in a holy place, was of ne- cessity an act of heathen worship. As all who attended the Jewish sacrifices, to which none but Jews were admitted, pro- fessed to be Jews and to be the joint-worshippers of Jehovah, and as they could not be in communion with the altar without being in communion with each other, therefore all who at- tended the sacrificial feasts of the heathen brought themselves into religious communion with idolaters. It need hardly be remarked that this passage gives no ground for the opinion that the Lord's supper is a sacrifice. This is not the point of comparison. The apostle's argument does not imply that, be- cause the Jewish and heathen feasts were sacrificial feasts, therefore the Christian festival had the same character. The whole stress lies on the word Kotvwvta. ' Because participation of Christian ordinances involves communion with Christ, par- ticipation of heathen ordinances involves communion with devils.'