The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Corinthians — Section 322

that these temptations were not superhuman, Ver. 17.-We being many a.re one bread, but were such ns men had resisted, nnd such and one body. It is easy to see how we aro as they could resist. God is faithful. He "one body," of which Christ is the Head,. had called them (eh. i. 9), and since he nnd we are the members. 'fhis is the meta- knew "how to deliver the godly out of phor used in eh. xii. 12, 13 and Rom. xii. 5_ temptations" (2 Pet. ii. 9), he would surely 'fhe more difficult exprcssiou, '.' ioe a,·e one perform his side of the coveunnt, nnd, if bread," is explained in the next clause. they did their parts, would stablish and The meaning seems to be-We all partake keep them from evil (2 Thess. iii. 3). Also. of the loaf, a.nd thereby become qualitatively, The mode of deli verauce shall be rc·ady as it were, a part of it, ns it of us, even as we' simultaneously with the temptation. A wa.y a.II become members of Christ's one body, to esoa.pe; rather, the way l-0 escape. Tho which that loaf sacramentally represents. way to escape is different in different Some commentators, disliking the harshness temptations, but for each temptation God of the expression, render it, "Because there would provide the special means of escaping is one bread, we being many are one body ; " it. or," For there is one bread. We being many Ver. 14.-Wherefore. As a .result of the are one body." But the language and whole reasoning, which has been meant to context support the rendering of our inspire the weak with a more liberalizing version; and the supposed "physiology" is ln10wlcdge, and the strong with a more fra- not so modern as to be at all surprising. ternal sympathy. Dearly beloved. The Ver. 18.-Pa.rtakers of the altar. It i~ word "dearlv" should be omitted. Flee better to render it" Have they not communion from idolatry. The original implies that' with the altar 'I" for the word is di..fl;erent from- they were to turn their backs on idolatry, that in the last verse. The meaning is that,. and so fly from it. by sharing in the sacrifices, the Jews stood Vcrs. 15-22.-The inherent disgraceful- in direct association with the altar, the ness of any tampering with idol.a.try. victims, and all that they symbolized (Dent. Ver. 15.-1 speak as to wise men; judge xii. 27). And St_ Paul implied that the ye what I sa.y. An appeal to their own same thing is true of those who syn1pathetic- reason to confirm bis argument (comp. eh. ally partook of idol-offerings_ xi. 13), perhaps with a touch of irony in the Ver. IS.-What say I then 1 What is it, first clause ( eh. iv. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 19 ). The then, which I am maintaining ( q,71µ.,)? That word for " I say " is 4>11µ.,, I affirm. the idol is anything. St. Paul repudiates Ver. 16.-The cup of blessing. A tro.ns- an inference which he hu.d. alrendy denied. Intion of the name cos haberachah (comp. Ps. (eh. viii. 4). Is anything. Has any intrin- cxvi.13), over which a. blessing was invoked sic value, meaning, or importance. In by the head of the family after the Passover. itself, the idol-offering is a mere dead,. The name is here transferred to the chalice indifferent thing. Of itself, the idol is nn, in the Eucharist, over which Christ "gave eidolon-a shadowy, unreal thing, one of the thanks" ( eh. xi. 24; Matt. xxvi. 27). There tlilim; •but in another nspect it was "really seems to be a close connection between the something," and so alone coulcl the rabbis. idea of "blessing." (eulogesas, Matt. xxvi. account for phenomena which seemed to 22; Mark xiv. 22) and "giving thanks" imply the reality of infernal miracles(' Avo- (euch.aristesas, ,Luke xxiL 19), and here, as da Zarah,' fol. 54, 2; 55, 1 ; and see nole in always, St. Paul and St. Luke resemble e~ch • Life of St. Paul,' ii. 74). other in their expressiori.s. The commumon Ver. 20.-But. The word rejects the of; literally, a participation in. ~y means former hypothesis. "[No ldonotadmit that], of the cup we realize our share in the bene- but what I say is that," etc. They saori.11.ce fits wrought by Christ's .precious blood, to devils, a.nd not to God. 'l'he word shedding. The cup is at once a symbol "demons" should be used, not" devils" (Deut. and a medium. The blood of Christ; of xxxii. 17). .The argument is that, though which the wine is the sacramental symbol. the idol is nothing-a mere stock or stone- By rightly drinking the wine, we spiritually it is yet the material symbol of a demon ( see partu.ke of the blood of Christ, we become Ps. xcvi. 5; cvi. 37; Baruch iv. 7). So sharers in his Di vine life. The bread; 111ilton- perhaps rather, the loaf, which wus appa- " Ancl devils to adore for deities; rently passed from hand to hand, that each Then were they known to men by various might break off a piece. Is it not the com- names, munion of the body of Christ l 'fhe best And vo.rious idols through the heathen comment on the verse is John vi. 41-59, in world, . . . which our Lord taught that there could be The chief were those who, from the pit of no true spiritual Jite without the closest hell, union with him and incorporation into his Uoaming to seek their proy on earth, durat life. fix  cu. x. 1-33.J 'l'HE FITIST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.