x
Σοὗ "θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς *kowwvods τῶν " δαιµονίων γίνεσθαι: 21. οὐ
Cor. xii. δύνασθε Γποτήριον Κυρίου πίνειν καὶ "ποτήριον "δαιµονίων, οὐ
ii. 16; 2 δύ ν δα. \ > si al Th ἡμό, δύνασθε ᾿τραπέζης Κυρίου " µετέχειν καὶ "τραπέζης *? δαιµονίων
α]ο. πα, Rev. ii. 21; freq. in Gospp.; cf. x. 1.
τρ. dam, Cf. Isa. Ixv. 11.
called the mysterious guiding voice within him δαιμόνιόν τι. Ed. observes a ten- dency, beginning with Eurip. and Plato and accentuated in the Stoics, ‘‘ to use the word in a depreciatory sense’’; already in Homer it often suggested the uncanny, the supernatural as an object of dread. The word was ready to hand for the LXX translators, who used it to render various Heb. epithets for heathen gods. Later Judaism, which peopled the unseen with good and evil spirits, made δαιμόνια a general term for the latter, apart from any specific refer. to idols (see, already, Tob. iii. 8, etc.); hence its prominence in the Gospels, and the origin of the word demoniac (6 δαιμονιζόμενος): on the whole subject, see Ur. s.v., also Everling’s Paulinische Angelologie u. Damonologie. For κοινωνοὶ τ. δαιµονίων, cf. Isa. xliv. tI, where the “fellows” of the idol signify a kind of religious guild, brought into mystic union with their god through the sacrificial meal (see Cheyne ad loc.) ; also Isa. Ixy. 13. Ver. 20c¢ is calculated to bring home to the Cor. the fearful danger of trifling with idolatry.
Vv. 21,22. This lively apostrophe sets in the strongest light the inconsistency of Cor. Christians who conform to idolatry, the untenability of their position. ‘‘ You cannot drink the Lord’s cup and the cup of demons”—the two together! ‘You cannot partake of the Lord’s table and the table of demons!” Cf. the τίς µετοχή, κοινωνία, Κ.τ.λ.; Of. 2 Cor. vi. 14 ff., and other parls. The nouns form- ing the obj. are anarthrous as_ being qualitative, the impossibility lying in the kind of the two cups; cf. note on il. 5. ‘‘The Lord’s cup” is that received at His direction and signifying allegiance to Him; in ver. 16, ‘‘the cup of (His) blessing.”—Possibly, P. alludes here to Mal. i. 7, 12, where ‘the table” signifies “the altar of Jehovah”; but the ex- pression is borrowed without this identi- fication. In this context table and altar are essentially distinguished; the altar supplies the table (cf. Heb. xiti. το). “5. Coena convivium, non sacrificium; in mensa, non in αἰτατί (Βρ.). The τράπεζα includes the ποτήριον and
22. ἢ “mwapalndodpev τὸν Κύριον; μὴ " ἰσχυρότεροι αὐτοῦ ἐσμεν ;
b Rom. xi. g; Ps. Ιχχνί, 20; also Mt. xv. 17; Lk. xvi. 21, xxii. 21, 30. For c Rom. x. rg (Deut. xxxii. 21), xi. 11, 14. i
d See i. 25.
ἄρτος of ver. 16 together. This passage gives its name of “(πε Lord’s Table” to the Eucharist.—‘‘ Or (is it that) we Ῥτο- voke the Lord to jealousy ?’’—is this what we mean by eating at both tables ? Paul includes himself in this question ; such conduct is conceivable in his case, since he had no scruple against the idolothyta on their own account (see viii., ix. r), Deut. xxxii. 21 (neighbouring the previous allusion of 20) sufficiently in- dicates the result of such insolence: see other O.T. parls. For this argumen- tative 4 in Paul’s questions, cf. vi. 9, etc., ix. 6.—If the Cor. are daring Christ’s sovereign displeasure by coquet- ting with idolatry, they must suppose themselves ‘‘stronger than He’! As sensible and prudent men they must see the absurdity, as well as the awful peril, of such double-dealing: cf. Deut. xxxii. 6, 28 f. ἰσχυρός (i. 25) implies inherent, personal strength. Of the δύναµις τ. κυρ. ᾿Ιησοῦ P. had given a solemn im- pression in ch. v. 4 f.; cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 3 f.
§ 34. LIBERTY AND ITS LIMITS, x. 23-xi. 1. The maxim “All things are lawful”? was pleaded in defence of the use of the idolothyta, as of other Cor. laxities; so the Ap. has to discuss it a second time (cf. vi. 12). In ch. vi. he bade his readers guard the application of this principle for their own sake, now for the sake of others; there in the interests of purity, here of charity (23 f.). When buying meat in the market, or when dining at an unbeliever’s table, the Chris- tian need not enquire whether the flesh offered him is sacrificial or not; but if the fact is pointedly brought to his notice, he should abstain, to avoid giving scandal (25-30). Above all such - regulations stands the supreme and comprehensive tule of doing everything to God’s glory (31). Let the Cor. follow Paul as he himself follows Christ, in living for the highest good of others (32-xi. 1)