4. We come, lastly, to the passage (1 Co lO"- ") in which the word is iLsed in connexion with the Holy Eucharist. To understand this passage, the whole section, commencing at 8', ' Concerning
meats oD'ered to idols,' needs to be studied con- tinuously. The more immediate context begins with 9'^. Just as not all who run receive the victor's crown, so in the history of the Chosen I'eople not all who had spiritual privileges were saved thereby. These privileges are described in metaphors borrowed from the Christian Sacra- ments. They were aU 'baptized into Moses,' as when the Cloud overshadowed them, and when they passed through the Sea : ' spiritual food ' and ' spiritual drink ' they all partook of, namely, the Manna and the Water from the Kock ; the Kock was the Messiah. These words are of importance as showing incidentally that St. Paul, like St. John, thought of the Eucharist as ' spiritual food and drink,' although this is not the side of it on which he ordinarily insists. The idolatry into which the Israelites fell in spite of their spiritual privileges is the starting-point of the warning of 10". From two sides the apostle has approached the dani^er of idolatry — the idolatry ol the Gentiles of his own day, the idolatry of Israel in the past. Worship, whether true or false, implies a fellowship. The Christian fellow- ship must be recognized and vindicated from con- tamination.
' The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not Koifuvia of the blood of Christ ? the bread which we break, is it not Koivufia of the body of Christ J because one bread, one body, we the many are, for all of us partake (/ierfxcMf) of the one bread.' What is the meaning of noiyui'ia here ? The AV renders ' the communion of ' ; the RV ' a com- munion of,' with tlie marg. alternative ' a par- ticipation in.' In the Greek the word, being a predicate, does not take the article ; but in English the definite article is in such cases usually supplied ; so that in this respect syntax makes no demand for alterin" the AV. Secondly, as to the word itself. It is no doubt tempting to take it in the simple sense of ' partaking of ' ; but this loses the force of its aerivation from Koiv6s, which implies jointness, or com- munity of some kind. In this very place St. Paul expresses mere ' partaking ' by /lerix"", not Kotvuveiy. Fellowship is the ruling idea of tha word, and we must not lose sight of it. In regard to the second of the clauses, the apostle himself interprets his meaning to us. The single loaf, broken and distributed and eaten, linked all who partook of it into unit}'. ' We are one loaf, one body, many though we be ; for of the one loaf we all partake.' Thus the loaf was nothing less than ' fellowship with the Body of the Chri.st.'
This interpretation is borne out by the apostle's next words : You are God's new Israel — Israel after the Spirit ; look at Israel after the flesh : they bring their sacrihces to the temple, they eat of them, and thereby they are in fellowship with the altar. Then, recurring to the Gentile sacri- fices, he points out that to partake of tliem is to be in fellow,sliip with the demons to whom they are ofl'ered. lie contrasts ' the cup of the Lord ' and ' the cup of the demons,' ' the table of the Lord' (i.e. the Bread) and 'the table of thedemons' {i.e. the idol -meats). ' I would not have you to enter into fellowship with the demons (koo/wfoi)! TuJi' iatiioylwv ylfejOat).' It is in sharp contrast with such a conception as this that St. Paul declares that to partake of the Eucliaristic Cup is to be in fellowship with the Blood of Christ, and to partake of the Eucliaristic Bread is to be in fellow- ship with the Body of Christ. Thus interpreting St. Paul by himself, we see once more the side of the truth on which he peculiarly insisted : fellow- ship in the New Covenant made by the Death of I Christ ; fellowship in the Body of Christ, that
462
COMPANY
CO.MPEL
living corporate unity of which, to his view, Christ is at once the Head and, in a deeper, fuller sense, the Wliole (1 Co 12", Eph 4'»).
J. Armitage Robinson. COMPANY was formerly used with more freedom than now, ' a great c' being loosely employed where we should say 'a great number,' or 'a great crowd.' Thus 2 Ch 20'^ ' this great c. that cometh against us ' (/UlnUJn, crowd) ; Ac 6' ' a great c. of the priests were obedient to the faith ' {6x^os ; so Lk 5-* 6" 9^" II-'' 12", Jn 60) ; Lk 23^ ' there followed him a great c. of people' (irX^Sos, RV 'multitude'); and He 12~ 'an innumerable c. of angels' (^lupids, RV ' innuni. hosts '). Even when the Heb. is a military term, as mahdneh, camp (Gn 32"''" -i 50^ 1 K 5",
1 Ch 9"), hayll, force, army (2 Ch 9'), gedhudh, troop (1 S 30""'=», 2 K 5-), ?dbh/i\ host (Ps 68" ' great was the c. of tliose that published it,' RV 'the women that publish the tidings area great host '), the meaning is quite indetinite.