<p>10:18 <em>Behold Israel after the flesh. Are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?- </em>&quot;Participants&quot; is the same word for &quot;communion&quot; in :16. Eating the sacrifice meant fellowshipping, having a common union, with the altar it was placed upon, and the god or religious entity the altar stood for. We recall that in chapter 8, Paul seems to say that a believer could eat food sacrificed to idols if he or she didn't believe there was a real god behind that idol; but to do so was wrong because it would encourage those Christians who still believed in the gods to do the same and in their case, actively participate in idol worship. The argument here seems to be that any eating idol food within the temple context meant that you were declaring common union with the idol. But Paul's argument in 8:10 was that a believer could eat food in the idol's temple but should not do so, lest it lead weaker believers into sin. He could have stated this higher and more obvious principle- that such action was effectively declaring common union with the idol. But instead he argues that an even higher principle is not to lead our brethren into sin. This too should be our primary concern- not, in the first place, whether this is right or wrong- but rather, what effect will this have on others? That is not to say that the right / wrong issue is irrelevant- as Paul makes clear here in chapter 10.</p><p>&quot;Those who eat the sacrifices&quot; within the Israelite system were the priests. They were allowed to take their daily food from the sacrifices offered to Yahweh. But Paul has earlier used this very argument in 1 Cor. 9:13 to prove that he would have been justified in taking material support from the Corinthians- because he was likewise involved in ministry work. He chose not to make use of that concession. But here he rather cleverly alludes to the same reality and says that in fact, all the Corinthians were like the priests, eating of the sacrifice, that of the Lord Jesus. This is one of many examples where the NT teaches that we are all priests, the entire brotherhood of believers is &quot;a royal priesthood&quot;, every one of us as dedicated to the Lord's service as the Levites were.</p><p>The only exclusivity of the Lord's table was that it was not to be turned into a place for worshipping pagan idols. Paul saw the sacrifices of Israel as having some relevance to the Christian communion meal. He comments: &quot;Are those who eat the victims not in communion with the altar?&quot; (1 Cor. 10:18); and the altar is clearly the Lord Jesus (Heb. 13:10). Eating of the communion meal was and is, therefore, fundamentally a statement of our fellowship with the altar, the Lord Jesus, rather than with others who are eating of Him. The bread and wine which we consume thus become antitypical of the Old Testament sacrifices; and they were repeatedly described as &quot;Yahweh's food&quot;, laid upon the altar as &quot;the table of Yahweh&quot; (Lev. 21:6,8; 22:25; Num. 28:2; Ez. 44:7,16; Mal. 1:7,12). And it has been commented: &quot;Current translations are inaccurate; <em>lehem panim</em> is the 'personal bread' of Yahweh, just as <em>sulhan panim</em> (Num. 4:7) is the 'personal table' of Yahweh&quot;. This deeply personal relationship between Yahweh and the offerer is continued in the breaking of bread; and again, the focus is upon the worshipper's relationship with Yahweh rather than a warning against fellowshipping the errors of fellow worshippers through this action. What <em>is</em> criticized in later Israel is the tendency to worship Yahweh through these offerings at the same time as offering sacrifice to other gods. Is. 66:3 speaks of this dualism in worship:</p><table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=1025>    <tbody>        <tr>            <td>            <p>            <strong>What was offered to Yahweh </strong></p>            </td>            <td>            <p><strong>What was offered to other gods simultaneously</strong></p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td>            <p>&quot;An ox is sacrificed,</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>a man is killed;</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td>            <p>a lamb is slain,</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>a dog is struck down;</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td>            <p>an offering is brought,</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>swine-flesh is savoured;</p>            </td>        </tr>        <tr>            <td>            <p>incense memorial is made,</p>            </td>            <td>            <p>idols are kissed&quot;</p>            </td>        </tr>    </tbody></table><p>And the new Israel made just this same blasphemy in the way some in the Corinth ecclesia ate of the Lord's table and also at the table of idols &quot;demons&quot;. Paul wasn't slow to bring out the similarities when he wrote to the Corinthians. It is this kind of dualism which is so wrong; to be both Christian and non-Christian at the same time, to mix the two. But differences of interpretation between equally dedicated worshippers of Yahweh, or believers in Christ, were never made the basis of condemnation.</p>