1 Corinthians 10:16

The cup of blessing which we bless - The design of this verse and the following verses seems to be, to prove that Christians, by partaking of the Lord’s Supper, are solemnly set apart to the service of the Lord Jesus; that they acknowledge Him as their Lord, and dedicate themselves to him, and that as they could not and ought not to be devoted to idols and to the Lord Jesus at the same time, so they ought not to participate in the feasts in honor of idols, or in the celebrations in which idolaters would be engaged; see 1Co 10:21. He states, therefore:

(1) That Christians are “united” and dedicated to Christ in the communion; 1Co 10:16-17.

(2) That this was true of the Israelites, that they were one people, devoted by the service of the altar to the same God, 1Co 10:18.

(3) That though an idol was nothing, yet the pagan actually sacrificed to devils, and Christians ought not to partake with them; 1Co 10:19-21. The phrase “cup of blessing” evidently refers to the wine used in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. it is called “the cup of blessing” because over it Christians praise or bless God for his mercy in providing redemption. It is not because it is the means of conveying a blessing to the souls of those who partake of it - though that is true - but because thanksgiving, blessing, and praise were rendered to God in the celebration, for the benefits of redemption; see Note, Mat 26:26. Or it may mean, in accordance with a well known Hebraism, “the blessed cup;” the cup that is blessed. This is the more literal interpretation; and it is adopted by Calvin, Beza, Doddridge, and others.

Which we bless - Grotius, Macknight, Vatablus, Bloomfield, and many of the early church fathers suppose that this means, “over which we bless God;” or, “for which we bless God.” But this is to do violence to the passage. The more obvious signification is, that there is a sense in which it may be said that the cup is blessed, and that by prayer and praise it is set apart and rendered in some sense sacred to the purposes of religion. it cannot mean that the cup has undergone any physical change, or that the wine is anything but wine; but that it has been solemnly set apart to the service of religion, and by prayer and praise designated to be used for the purpose of commemorating the Saviour’s love. That may be said to be blessed which is set apart to a sacred use (Gen 2:3; Exo 20:11); and in this sense the cup may be said to be blessed; see Luk 9:16, “And he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven he blessed them,” etc.; compare Gen 14:9; Gen 27:23, Gen 27:33, Gen 27:41; Gen 28:1; Lev 9:22-23; 2Sa 6:18; 1Ki 8:41.

Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? - Is it not the emblem by which the blood of Christ is exhibited, and the means by which our union through that blood is exhibited? Is it not the means by which we express our attachment to him as Christians; showing our union to him and to each other; and showing that we partake in common of the benefits of his blood? The main idea is, that by partaking of this cup they showed that they were united to him and to each other; and that they should regard themselves as set apart to him. We have communion with one κοινωνία koinōnia,) that which is in “common,” that which pertains to all, that which evinces fellowship) when we partake together; when all have an equal right, and all share alike; when the same benefits or the same obligations are extended to all. And the sense here is, that Christians “partake alike” in the benefits of the blood of Christ; they share the same blessings; and they express this together, and in common, when they partake of the communion.

The bread ... - In the communion. It shows, since we all partake of it. that we share alike in the benefits which are imparted by means of the body of the Redeemer. In like manner it is implied that if Christians should partake with idolaters in the feasts offered in honor of idols, that they would be regarded as partaking with them in the services of idols, or as united to them, and therefore such participation was improper.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1Co 10:16-17. The cup of blessing — In the Lord’s supper, the sacramental cup; which we bless — Set apart to a sacred use, solemnly invoking the blessing of God upon it. Dr. Macknight renders the original expression, ο ευλογουμεν, for which we bless God, a sense which he thinks is sanctioned by 1Co 11:24, “where this blessing is interpreted by the giving of thanks. And he considers it as denoting the whole communicants’ joining together in blessing God over the cup, for his mercy in redeeming the world through the blood of Christ. Thus both Luke and Paul, in their account of the institution, express this part of the action by ευχαριστησας, having given thanks. And hence the service itself hath long borne the name of the eucharist, or thanksgiving, by way of eminence.” Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? — The means of our partaking of those invaluable benefits which are the purchase of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break — And which was appointed in the first institution of the ordinance for this purpose; is it not the communion of the body of Christ? — In the like sense? That is, the means and token of our sharing in the privileges which he procured by the offering up of his body for us, to be torn, broken, and put to death. For we, being many, are yet, as it were, one bread — One loaf, as the word αρτος often signifies, and is translated, Mat 16:9; where Jesus asks, Do ye not remember the five αρτους, loaves, of the five thousand? and Mat 4:3, Command that these stones be made, αρτους, loaves. The sense is, It is this communion which makes us all one: by partaking of one and the same bread, we are united and formed into one mystical body. “This account of the Lord’s supper, the apostle gave to show the Corinthians, that as by eating thereof, the partakers declare they have the same object of worship, the same faith, the same hope, and the same dispositions with the persons whom they join in that act of religion, and that they will follow the same course of life; so, in all reasonable construction, by eating the sacrifices of idols, the partakers declare they are of the same faith and practice with the worshippers of idols, that they have the same objects of worship with them, and that they expect to share with them in the benefits to be derived from that worship.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10:16-18 Paul affirms the spiritual meaning of sacred meals. In the Lord’s Supper, believers share in the blood and body of Christ (see also 11:17-34; Matt 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20). Sharing one loaf unites believers as one body in Christ, just as the pagans’ religious meals unite them with the gods they worship (see 1 Cor 10:19-21).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 10:16. Τὸ ποτήριον, the cup) The cup is put before the bread; because according to his design [to reprove the eating of meats sacrificed to idols, answering to the bread of the Lord’s Supper], he dwells more on the consideration of the meat, 1Co 10:21; mention is however made of the cup, because it is inseparable from the other element. The interchange of the order here is a proof, that the body of Christ is received separately, not inasmuch as it has the blood accompanying it. In mentioning food more respect is paid to meat, than drink; but in the mystery of redemption the blood is oftener named, than the body of Christ. Hence Paul’s promiscuous arrangement [sometimes the bread, at other times the wine coming first].—τὴς εὐλογίας, of blessing) on that account it is distinguished from a common cup, Mat 26:27.—ὁ εὐλογοῦμεν, which we bless) plural as in we break, supply, we, ministers and believers, each for his own part: comp. ch. 1Co 5:4. All, who bless and break together, enter the more closely into communion.—κοινωνία, communion) This predicate used in the abstract shows that the subject should likewise be taken in the abstract. The cup, which we use, i.e. the use of the cup (comp. Mar 7:30, note). He who drinks of this cup, is a partaker of the blood of Christ; so 1Co 10:18, they who eat. The highest degree of reality is implied: comp. 1Co 10:19, note.—τοῦ αἵματος, of the blood) that was shed. Now, he who is a partaker of the blood and body of Christ, is also a partaker of the sacrifice, that was offered on the cross: comp. 1Co 10:18; a partaker in short of Christ himself; comp. what is put in antithesis to this, 1Co 10:20, at the end.—τὸν ἄρτον) There is a construction similar to this, 1Co 7:17: and in the LXX., Num 32:4. Τῆς εὐλογίας is here again to be supplied; the bread of blessing.—τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, of the body of Christ) of the body delivered up to death for us; comp. the opposite [the antithesis] to this, 1Co 10:20, at the beginning. The body of Christ is also the Church, as in the following verse; but here the very body of Christ is intended, from which the blood is contradistinguished.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_10:16. Τὸ ποτήριον] It is most natural to take this as in the accusative, after the analogy of the second clause of the verse (against Rückert). Respecting the attractio inversa, as in Mat_21:42, see Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 16 f.; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 247 [E. T. 288]; Kühner, II. p. 512. This Greek fashion of trajection is of such common occurrence, that it is a piece of pure arbitrariness to infer, with Hofmann, from the accusative here that the action of blessing and breaking, of which the elements are the objects, makes them the κοινωνία.

Paul names the cup first, not because at the sacrificial feasts men thought less about food than about a pleasant meeting primarily for enjoying wine (they came for eating and drinking), but because he means to speak at more length about the bread, and in connection with it, especially to discuss the Israelitic partaking of the sacrifices, as it suited his theme of the meat offered to idols. For this reason he begins here by disposing briefly of the point concerning the cup. In chap. 11 he does otherwise, because not regarding the matter there from this special point of view.

τῆς εὐλογίας] genit. qualit., i.e. the cup over which the blessing is spoken, namely, when the wine contained in it is expressly consecrated by prayer to the sacred use of the Lords Supper.[1646] It is a mistake to understand τῆς εὐλογ. actively: the cup which brings blessing (Flatt, Olshausen, Kling), as the more detailed explanations which follow are sufficient of themselves to prove. They equally forbid the explanation of Schulz: the cup of praise[1647] (comp Kahnis, Lehre vom Abendm. p. 128). Neither should the phrase be viewed as a terminus technicus borrowed from the Jewish liturgy, and answering to the כוֹם הברכה. see on Mat_26:27, and Rückert, Abendm. p. 219 f.

ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν] an epexegesis giving additional solemnity to the statement: which we bless, consecrate with prayer, when we celebrate the Lords Supper. Comp Mar_8:7; Luk_9:16; 1Sa_9:13. ΕὐΛΟΓ. in its literal sense must not be confounded with ΕὐΧΑΡΙΣΤ. (Erasmus, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Beza: quod cum gratiarum actione sumimus), although the prayer was, in point of fact, a thanksgiving prayer in accordance with Christs example, 1Co_11:24 f. As to the difference between the two words, comp on 1Co_14:16.

ΟὐΧῚ ΚΟΙΝ. Τ. ΑἽΜ. Τ. Χ. ἘΣΤΙ] This is aptly explained by Grotius (after Melanchthon and others): ΚΟΙΝΩΝΊΑΝ vocat id, per quod fit ipsa communio. The cup, i.e. its contents as these are presented and partaken of, is the medium of this fellowship; it is realized in the partaking.[1651] Comp 1Co_1:30; Joh_11:25; Joh_17:3; Rodatz in Rudelbachs Zeitschrift 1844, 1, p. 131; Fritzsche, a[1653] Rom. II. p. 31. The sense therefore is: Is not communion with the blood of Christ established through partaking of the cup?[1654] Ἐστί never means anything else than est (never significat); it is the copula of existence; whether this, however, be actual or symbolical (or allegorical) existence, the context alone must decide. Here it must necessarily have the former sense (against Billroth), for the mere significance of a participation would go no way towards proving the proposition that eating meat offered to idols was idolatry; and as, therefore, in 1Co_10:18 it is not the significance, but the fact of the participation, that is expressed (comp 1Co_10:20), so also must it of necessity be here. What sort of a participation it might be, was of no importance in the present connection, for the apostle is dealing here simply with the κοινωνία in itself, not with its nature, which differed according to the different analogies adduced (1Co_10:18; 1Co_10:20). It cannot therefore be gathered from this passage whether he was thinking of some kind of real, possibly even material connection of those eating and drinking in the Supper with the body and blood of Christ,[1656] or, on the other hand, of an inward union realized in the believing consciousness, consisting therefore in the spiritual contact whereby the believer, who partakes of the elements, is conscious to himself in so partaking of being connected by saving appropriation with the body and blood of reconciliation. But we see clearly from 1Co_11:24 f. that Paul could only mean the latter, since at the institution of the Supper the body of Christ was not yet slain, and His blood still flowed in His veins.[1657] See, besides, on Mat_26:26. Again, if the glorified state of His body, i.e. the σῶμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ (Php_3:21), set in only with His ascension, and if, when He instituted the Supper, His body was still but the σῶμα τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, which soon after died upon the cross for reconciliation (Col_1:22), while, nevertheless, the first Lords Supper, dispensed by Jesus Himself, must have earned with it the whole specific essence of the sacred ordinancethat essence depending precisely upon the future crucifixion of the body and outpouring of the blood,then the apostle cannot have in view the glorified[1658] σῶμα and αἷμα as being given and partaken of through the medium of the bread and wine. Otherwise, we should have to attribute to Paul the extravagant conception,which is, however, equally out of harmony with the institution itself and without shadow of warrant in the apostles words, nay, at variance with what he says in 1Co_15:50,that, at the last Supper, Jesus had His pneumatic body already at His disposal to dispense as He would (Olshausen, Hofmann), or that a momentary glorification, like that on the Mount, took place at the time of instituting the Supper, as Kahnis formerly held; but see now his Dogmat. I. p. 622; and comp also, on the other side, Ebrard, Dogma vom heilig. Abendm. I. p. 109 f. Either, therefore, the apostle regarded the κοινωνία of Christs body and blood as being different before His glorification from what it was afterwards, or it was in his eyes, both before and after, the inward spiritual fellowship realized by the inner man through the medium of the symbol partaken of, as an appropriation of the work of atonement consummated through means of His body and blood, and consequently as a real life-fellowship, other than which, indeed, he could not conceive it as realized when the Supper was instituted. Comp Keim in the Jahrb. für Deutsche Theol. 1859, p. 90; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 355. Against this κοινωνία subjectively realized in the devout feeling of the believer, and objectively established by the divine institution of the ordinance itself, it is objected that the phrase, fellowship of the body and blood, expresses at any rate an interpenetration of Christs body and the bread (according to the Lutheran synecdoche; comp Kahnis former view in his Abendm. p. 136, also Hofmann, p. 219). But this objection asserts too much, and therefore proves nothing, seeing that the fellowship with Christs body and blood realized by means of the symbol also corresponds to the notion of fellowship, and that all the more, because this eating and drinking of the elements essentially is the specific medium of the deep, inward, real, and living κοινωνία; hence, too, the calix communionis cannot be possibly a figurata loquutio. This last point we maintain against Calvin, who, while insisting that non tollatur figurae veritas, and also that the thing itself is there, namely, that non minus sanguinis communionem anima percipiat, quam ore vinum bibimus, still explains away the κοινωνία of the blood of Christ to the effect, dum simul omnes nos in corpus suum inserit, ut vivat in nobis et nos in ipso.

ὃν κλῶμεν] There was no need to repeat here that the bread, too, was hallowed by a prayer of thanksgiving, after the cup had been already so carefully described as a cup consecrated for the Supper. Instead of doing so, Paul enriches his representation by mention of the other essential symbolic action with the bread; comp 1Co_11:24. That the breaking of the bread, however, was itself the consecration (Rückert), the narrative of the institution will not allow us to assume.

τοῦ σώματος τ. Χ.] in the strict, not in the figurative sense, as Stroth, Rosenmüller, Schulthess, and others: declaramus nos esse membra corporis Christi, i.e. societatis Christianae, comp also Baur, neut. Theol. p. 201. This interpretation is at variance with the first clause, for which the meaning of the Supper as first instituted forbids such a figurative explanation (in opposition to Zwingli[1664]); nor can this be justified by 1Co_10:17; for

[1646] Who had to officiate at this consecration? Every Christian man probably might do so at that time, when the arrangements of church-life as regards public worship were as yet so little reduced to fixed order. In Justin Martyrs time (Apol. i. 65) it fell to the προεστώς, but so that the president is conceived as representing and acting in fellowship with the congregation. See Ritschl, altkathol. K. p. 365 f. The plurals in the passage before us are the utterance of the Christian consciousness of fellowship, to which it makes no difference who, in each separate ease, may be the ministerial organ of the fellowship. Kahnis explains them from the amen of the congregation (Justin, loc. cit.); but that itself was primarily the time-hallowed expression of that consciousness.

[1647] With excessive arbitrariness Hofmann (comp. his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 225 f.) insists on taking εὐλογία otherwise than εὐλογοῦμεν; the former, in the sense of an ascription of praise, with God as its subject: the latter, in the sense of consecrating the cup. The consecration, according to him, makes the difference between it and the Passover cup. But the said difference could not have been expressed by Paul in a more unsuitable or perplexing way than by repeating the same word.

[1651] Hofmann too comes to this in substance after all, although he tries to escape from it, taking κοινωνία as the matter of fact of a joint (?) participancy, and then opining that the apostle has in view an eating of the bread and drinking of the wine, which by means of this corporeal process, and without its being possible to eat and drink merely bread and wine, makes us joint-partakers of the body and blood of Christ. In support of the meaning thus assigned to κοινωνία, Hofmann appeals inappropriately to 1Co_1:9; 2Co_13:13; 1Jn_1:3. Joint participancy would be συγκοινωνία; comp. συγκοινωνός, 1Co_9:23; Rom_11:17; Php_1:7.

[1653] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1654] It is plain from vv. 18, 20, 21, that κοινωνία is here neither communication, apportioning (Luther, al., including Kling, Billroth), which it never means in the N. T. (see on Rom_15:26), nor consortium, societas (Erasmus: quod pariter sanguine Christi sumus redemti, comp. Zwingli). See also Kahnis, Abendm. p. 132 f.

[1656] For the rest, it is plain enough from the correlative σῶμα that the αἷμα τ. Χ. denotes the bloodnot, as D. Schulz still maintains, the bloody deathof Christ (which, considered in itself, it might indeed symbolize, but could not be called. Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 274; Kahnis, Abendm. p. 60 f.).

[1657] When Rodatz objects that an ideal union with the actual body slain and blood shed is a logical contradiction, he overlooks the fact that the material sphere is not beyond the reach of inward appropriation. Spiritual communion may have reference to a material object, without excluding a symbolic process in which signatum non cum signo sed nobiscum unitur (Vossius, de baptismo, p. 11). Comp. Kahnis, Dogmat. I. 621: Bread and wine form not a mere symbol, but a sign, which is at the same time medium; see also III. p. 489. The important alteration in the Latin Confess. Aug. Art. X. of 1540, points in the same direction.

[1658] Rückert also (Abendm. p. 224 ff.) holds that Paul conceived the body and blood in the Supper as glorified; that, in virtue of the consecration, the participant partakes of the glorified blood, etc. Rückert, of course, discards all questions as to mode in connection with this view which he ascribes to the apostle, but which he himself considers a baseless one (p. 242). His mistake lies in deducing too much from πνευματικόν, which is neither in ver. 3 nor anywhere else in the N. T. the opposite of material, but of natural (1Pe_2:5 not excluded); and the πνεῦμα to which πνευματικός refers is always (except Eph_6:13, where it is the diabolic spirit-world that is spoken of) the Divine πνεῦμα. In the case of gifts which are πνευματικά, it is this πνεῦμα who is always the agent; so with the supply of manna and water in the wilderness, and so, too, with the bread and wine received in the Lords Supper, inasmuch as in this βρῶμα and πόμα the communion of the body and blood of Christ is realized, which does not take place when bread and wine are partaken of in the ordinary, natural way.

[1664] Zwingli, in his Respon. ad Bugenh., explains it thus: Poculum gratiarum actionis, quo gratias agimus, quid quaeso, aliud est quam nos ipsi? Nos enim quid aliud sumus nisi ipsa communio, ipse coetus et populus, consortium et sodalitas sanguinis Christi? h. e. ille ipse populus, qui sanguine Christi ablutus est. The most thorough historical development of Zwinglis doctrine is that given by Dieckhoff in his evang. Abendmahlslehre im Reformationszeitalter, I. p. 428 ff. Rückert remarks with justice that Zwingli has here lost his footing on evangelical ground altogether. But Calvin, too, has lost it, inasmuch as he makes everything turn upon the spiritual reception of the glorified body, i.e. upon receiving the vivifying power which flows from it, whereas the words of institution have to do simply with that body, which was to be crucified for the atonement and with its fellowship. As to Calvins doctrine of the Supper, see, besides Henry and Stähelin, Kahnis, II, p. 494 ff.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 10:16 . κοινωνία is the key-word of this passage (see parls.); the Lord’s Supper constitutes a “communion” centring in Christ, as the Jewish festal rites centred in “the altar” (1Co 10:18 ), and as “the demons,” the unseen objects of idolatrous worship, supply their basis of communion in idolatrous feasts (1Co 10:21 f.). Such fellowship involves (1) the ground of communion , the sacred object celebrated in common; (2) the association established amongst the celebrants, separating them from all others: “The word communion denotes the fellowship of persons with persons in one and the same object” (Ev [1489] ). These two ideas take expression in 1Co 10:16-17 in turn; their joint force lies behind the protest of 1Co 10:20 ff. Appealing to the Eucharist or Eulogia , as it was also called P. begins with “the cup” ( cf. the order of Luk 22:17 ff., and Didaché ix. 2 f.), the prominent object in the sacrificial meal (1Co 10:21 ), containing, as one may say, the essence of the feast ( cf. Psa 23:5 ). τ . εὐλογίας is attributive gen [1490] (like “cup of salvation” in Psa 116:13 ; see other parls., for both words); so Cv [1491] , “destinatus ad mysticam eulogiam,” and Hn [1492] (see his note). Christ blessed this cup, making it thus for ever a “cup of blessing”; cf. the early sacramental phrases, οἱ τῆς εὐλογίας Ἰησοῦ ἄρτοι in Or [1493] on Mat 10:25 , and τὰς εὐλογίας τ . Χριστοῦ ἐσθίειν from the Catacombs (X. Kraus, Roma sotteranea , 217), cited by Hn [1494] On this view, ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν is no repetition of τῆς εὐλογίας , but is antithetical to it in the manner of Eph 1:3 : sc . “the cup which gives blessing, for which we give blessing to God”. The prevalent interpretation of τ . ποτήρ . τ . εὐλογίας makes the phrase a rendering of kôs habb’rakah , the third cup of the Passover meal, over which a specific blessing was pronounced (often identified with that of the Eucharist); or, as Ed [1495] thinks (referring to Luk 22:20 ), the fourth , which closed the meal and was attended with the singing of the Hallel. Such a technical Hebraism would scarcely be obvious to the Cor [1496] , and the gen [1497] so construed is artificial in point of Gr [1498] idiom; whereas the former construction is natural, and gives a sense in keeping with the readers’ experience. τὸ ποτήριον , τὸν ἄρτον are acc [1499] by inverse relative attraction , a constr [1500] not unknown, though rare, in cl [1501] Gr [1502] (see Wr [1503] , p. 204). Hf [1504] thinks that, with the merging of these nouns in the rel [1505] clause, the act of blessing the cup and breaking the bread becomes the real subject of κοινωνία in each instance as though P. wrote, “when we bless the cup, break the bread, is it not a communion, etc.?” In any case, the “communion” looks beyond the bare ποτήριον and ἄρτος to the whole sacred action, the usus poculi , etc. (Bg [1506] ), of which they form the centre. “The bread” is “blessed” equally with “the cup,” but in its case the prominent symbolic act is that of breaking (see parls.), which connotes the distribution to “many” of the “one loaf.” Thus “the sacramental bread came to be known as the κλασμός : so Did ., § 9” (Ed [1507] ). On the pl [1508] εὐλογοῦμεν , κλῶμεν , Mr [1509] observes: “ Whose was it to officiate in this consecration? At this date, when the order of public worship in the Church was far from being settled, any Christian man was competent . By the time of Justin ( Apol . i. 65) the function was reserved for the προεστώς , but on the understanding that he represented the community and acted in communion with it (see Ritschl, Altkath. Kirche , 2 pp. 365 f). The pls. of our passage speak out of the consciousness of the Christian fellowship, in which it is matter of indifference who may be, in this instance or that, its administrative organ.” οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος , τοῦ σώματος , τοῦ Χριστοῦ ; “Is it not a communion of ( or in) the blood, the body, of Christ?” ( cf. , for the gen [1510] after κοινωνία , note on 1Co 1:9 ) not “a communion with the blood, etc.” The stress lies on τοῦ Χριστοῦ in both questions: through the cup and loaf believers participate together in Christ , in the sacrifice of His blood offered to God (Rom 3:25 , Eph 1:7 ; Eph 1:11 ), and in the whole redemption wrought through His bodily life and death and resurrection. τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ carries our thoughts from the incarnation (Phi 2:7 ), through the crucifixion (Col 1:22 ), on to the heavenly glory of the Redeemer (Phi 3:21 ). The cup and bread are here styled “a communion in Christ’s blood and body”; in His own words (1Co 11:25 ), “the new covenant in My blood,” a communion on the basis of the covenant established by the sacrifice of the Cross.

[1489] T. S. Evans in Speaker’s Commentary .

[1490] genitive case.

[1491] Calvin’s In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii .

[1492] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[1493] Origen.

[1494] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[1495] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians .

[1496] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1497] genitive case.

[1498] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.

[1499] accusative case.

[1500] construction.

[1501] classical.

[1502] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.

[1503] Winer-Moulton’s Grammar of N.T. Greek (8th ed., 1877).

[1504] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).

[1505] relative pronoun.

[1506] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.

[1507] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians .

[1508] plural.

[1509] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

[1510] genitive case.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vv. 16, 17. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17. Seeing that there is only one bread, we, being many, are one body: for we are all partakers of one bread.” — The Holy Supper is, in the New Testament, the corresponding action to the feast which completed the peace - offering in the Old. The sacrifice once offered, the Jewish worshipper with his family celebrated a sacred feast in the temple court, in which the priest participated, and in which the part of the victim not consumed on the altar was eaten in common. It was in a manner the pledge of reconciliation which the Lord gave to the sinner on his restoration to grace. So the victim sacrificed is eaten by the believer in the Lord’s Supper in token of reconciliation, and the result of this act is the formation of a real communion on the part of the worshipper, first with the victim (1Co 10:16), then also with all the other worshippers (1Co 10:17).

As in the second proposition of 1Co 10:16 the accusative ἄρτον, the bread, is an attraction arising from the following ὅν, Meyer, Hofmann, Holsten, etc., have thought that it must be so also with τὸ ποτήριον, the cup, in the first proposition. But this reason would only be valid if the proposition relative to the bread was placed first; reading the text as it stands, it is impossible to take τὸ ποτήριον otherwise than as a nominative.

The genitive εὐλογίας, of blessing, must contain an allusion to the famous cup of the Paschal feast, which bore the name of cos habberakia, the cup of blessing; it was the third which the father of the family circulated in the course of the feast; he did so while pronouncing over it a thanksgiving prayer for all God’s benefits in nature and toward Israel. Jesus had reproduced this rite in the institution of the Holy Supper, but substituting, no doubt, for the Israelitish thanksgiving a prayer of gratitude for the salvation, higher than the deliverance from Egypt, which He was about to effect by His death, the foundation of the new covenant. The meaning therefore is: “The cup over which the Lord uttered the thanksgiving which we repeat when we celebrate this ceremony.” Some give the genitive εὐλογίας an active meaning: “The cup which produces blessing.” Heinrici compares, in an analogous sense, Psa 116:13 : “the cup of salvation,” and Isa 51:17 : “the cup of fury;” he thus explains this complement: “The cup which contains the blessing of Christ.” This meaning is less natural in itself; and next, it does not answer to the meaning of the corresponding Hebrew expression. There is only one reason that might lead us to accept it, the desire to escape a tautology with the following phrase: which we bless. We could not escape from this awkwardness if, with Meyer, we regarded this last expression as only the explanatory paraphrase of the τῆς εὐλογίας, of blessing. Such a repetition would be superfluous. Besides, Paul would have required to say in this case ὑπὲρ οὗ (for which), and not ὅ, “which we bless.” This pronoun in the accusative shows precisely that these words contain a new idea. It was not only God that was blessed for this cup, the symbol of salvation; but the cup itself was blessed as representing that which Christ had held in His hand when He instituted the Supper and said, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood.” The complement: of blessing, expresses the idea: “May God be blessed for this cup!” and the words: which we bless, this: “May this cup be blessed to us!” Comp. the phrase Luk 9:16 : He blessed the loaves. It was by this blessing or consecration of the cup as a figurative sign of the blood of redemption that the cup became to the consciousness of the Church the means of participation in the blood of Christ.

The plural: we bless, alludes to the amen whereby the Church appropriated the formula of consecration. In the age of Justin (middle of the second century), it was the presbyter, presiding over the assembly, who performed this act; we cannot say whether it was so already in the apostle’s time. The Didache (Διδαχή) of the Twelve Apostles, describing the ceremony of the Supper (chap. 9), tells us nothing on this head.

In the principal proposition, the notion of being (ἐστί) is certainly not the essential idea in Paul’s view, as if he wished to insist and to say: “is really.” In this sense the word ἐστί would have required to be placed first both times, before the predicate κοινωνία, the communion. The emphasis is on the predicate: the communion. By this term κοινωνία, does the apostle mean to designate a material participation in the blood of Christ, or a moral participation in its beneficent and salutary efficacy for the expiation of sins? In the former case we must hold, that as the instantaneous effect of the consecration, a physical act is wrought, either in the form of a transubstantiation, which makes wine the very blood of Christ, or in that of a conjunction of the blood with the wine of the Supper. But if the real blood of Christ was in one of these two forms offered to the communicant, this so essential element of the rite would certainly have been wanting the first time it was celebrated when Jesus instituted it; for His blood being not yet shed could not be communicated to the apostles. The reference, therefore, could only be to the blood of His glorified body. But the Apostle Paul expressly teaches that blood, as a corruptible principle, does not enter as an element into the glorified body (1Co 15:50). The two theories, Catholic and Lutheran, seem to us to be overturned by this simple observation. — On the other hand, the apostle’s words cannot merely denote, as some commentators have supposed, the profession of faith made by the communicant in the expiatory virtue of Christ’s blood, and the thanksgiving with which he accompanies this profession. What does Paul wish to prove by appealing here to the analogy of the Holy Supper? He wishes to demonstrate, by the salutary influence which the communion exercises over the believer’s heart, that demons exercise a pernicious one over him who takes part in the heathen sacrificial feasts. The Holy Supper is not, therefore, according to the apostle’s view, a simple act of profession and thanksgiving on the believer’s part. It is, at the same time, a real partaking of the grace purchased by Christ, and which He communicates to the devout soul of the communicant. This conception is a sort of intermediate one between the two opposite views which we have just set aside, a conception of the kind which Calvin sought to formulate. Especially as to the cup, the communion is an effectual partaking in the expiation accomplished by the blood of Christ and in the reconciliation to God which is thus assured to us; it is our taking in possession that remission of sins, of which Jesus Himself spoke when handing the cup, and by which we are placed in the pure and luminous atmosphere of Divine adoption.

The accusative τὸν ἄρτον, the bread, is explained by attraction of the following pronoun ὅν (Mat 21:42). It is occasioned by the fact that the bread is here contemplated in its close relation to the act as a whole; the bread only appears as broken.

The words are not used in connection with the bread, nor with the thanksgiving, nor with the act of consecration, but solely with the breaking of it. It is so, undoubtedly, to avoid repetition; for the bread also was consecrated with thanksgiving. This appears from the passage of Justin in which he calls the Holy Supper: ἡ εὐχαριστηθεῖσα τροφή, the Eucharistic nourishment, for which thanks are given, as well as at a yet earlier period, from the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, in which there is express mention of the double thanksgiving for the cup and the bread in the primitive Jewish Christian Churches.

The plural κλῶμεν, we break, either suggests the moral participation of the whole church in this act which the president performed in memory of Jesus breaking the bread for the disciples, or it supposes a form such as prevails in the Churches where every communicant himself breaks off a piece of the bread which passes from one to another. The term κοινωνία, communion, is repeated in connection with the bread; it is, in fact, the notion which unites the two acts in one, and from which has arisen the ordinary name of the sacrament, the communion.

Holsten thinks he can apply this word to the relation formed between believers by participation in the Supper. This is to do violence to the term which denotes the inner side of the participation of believers in the sacrament; comp. 1Co 1:9. The idea of the relation between communicants will not come till 1Co 10:17, as a corollary from the idea of their union with Christ. It is to get at the same meaning of κοινωνία that some commentators, such as Erasmus, Zwingle, etc., have here applied the term σῶμα Χριστοῦ, the body of Christ, to the Church, the community of those who believe in Christ. This explanation is as untenable as Holsten’s. It is incompatible with the parallel proposition relative to the blood of Christ; in this connection it is quite certain that the body of Christ can only denote the physical organism which Christ possessed here below, an organism represented by the bread broken in the Supper, and of which the blood, taken literally, was the life. The believer’s communion with the body of the Lord adds a new element to communion with Christ, founded on participation in His blood; the latter is participation in a benefit purchased by Him, that of reconciliation; the former is participation in His person, the assimilation of the very substance of His being. In the blood, represented by the cup, we contemplate and apply to ourselves Christ dead for us; in the body, represented by the bread, we appropriate Christ living in us. Our communion with this body broken for us, and then glorified, is therefore of a more intimate, more direct, more living nature than communion with the blood. St. Paul himself has expressed this profound fact in all its force and reality in the words: “It is no more I that live, but Christ that liveth in me” (Gal 2:20). No doubt this fact is above all of a spiritual nature; it is His holy person whom His Spirit makes to live in us; but this spiritually holy person is at the same time a corporeally glorified person, and Paul himself teaches us that we are in a living relation to it, similar to that by which our natural descent unites us to the first Adam (1Co 15:48-49). Participation in His glorified body thus follows from communion with His holy person by the power of the Spirit. If it is so, we find here, though Holsten seeks to show the contrary, the same group of thoughts as in John, when, in chap. 6, Jesus speaks of the necessity of eating His flesh and drinking His blood to have life and to be raised again at the last day (Joh 6:39-40; Joh 6:44; Joh 6:54). It is true, John uses the word flesh rather than body. But this is because he means to designate the substance as related to the idea of eating, which is naturally the dominant one in the context (following the multiplication of the loaves); whereas Paul speaks of the body, as an organism, and that in relation to the notion of breaking, which is particularly prominent both in this passage and in 1Co 11:24. This shows no difference of view, but only of relation.

It has been asked why in our passage the cup is placed before the bread, while in chap. 11, and in the institution of the Holy Supper, we find the opposite order. Meyer answers: Because the idea of bread afforded a transition to that of the flesh of the Jewish and heathen sacrifices, immediately to be spoken of; Hofmann: Because wine played the principal part in heathen feasts, and so required to be put first. Edwards, nearly the same: Perhaps because the sacrificial meals were rather συμπόσια than συσσίτια. I incline to think that Paul, speaking here in name of the Christian consciousness, puts the blood first, because it is expiation which faith appropriates in the first place; while the bread is placed second, because it represents the communication of Christ’s power and life, which follows faith in reconciliation by His death. The opposite order was required by the circumstances of the institution of the Supper; see on chap. 1Co 11:24 seq.

Vv. 17. From the communion of every believer with the Lord, Paul deduces the communion of believers with one another; we shall see with what view. This verse may be construed grammatically in three ways. The first and most obvious would be to make the ὅτι, seeing that, relate to the preceding verse, while understanding the verb ἐστί in the first proposition: “...is the communion of the body of Christ, seeing that there is only one bread.” Then, taking this construction as granted, it might be applied also to what follows: “(and) seeing that therefore we are one body, we who are many.” So Meyer, Osiander, etc. According to this interpretation, the communion of Christians with one another would be here alleged to prove the communion of Christians with their Head in the Holy Supper. The construction is not tenable: 1, because the existence of two parallel propositions not connected by καί, and, would be without example in Paul’s writings; 2, because the verb ἐστί, is, could not be understood in the first proposition; it would require to be expressed as corresponding to the ἐσμέν, we are, in the second; 3, because the proof would be defective. The communion of Christians with Christ in the Holy Supper cannot be demonstrated by the communion of Christians with one another, because this second fact is much less evident to the Christian consciousness.

The second construction also makes the ὅτι, seeing that, dependent on 1Co 10:16, but makes the two substantives one bread and one body two coordinate predicates of the many: “seeing that we, the many, are one bread, one body;” so Holsten. What a strange mode of expression: we are one bread! The more so, as Meyer observes, that the term bread can only be taken here in a figurative sense; otherwise there would be a tautology with the following proposition: “We are all partakers of one bread.” But if the word bread is taken the first time in its mystical sense, why add to it the expression: one body? In no sense can the apostle conclude from the fact that all communicants partake of one bread, that they all become that bread!

We must therefore have recourse to a third construction, the only admissible one, as it seems to us; it is that followed by the Vulgate, Calvin, Beza, Rückert, Hofmann, Heinrici, etc. The conjunction ὅτι, seeing that, is the beginning of a new sentence; and the subordinate proposition: “seeing that there is one bread,” is regarded as dependent on the following proposition, which is the principal: “Seeing that there is one bread, we, being many, are one body.” The logical nexus which unites these two propositions is explained by the following sentence: For we are all partakers of the same bread. The communicants, by all receiving a piece of the same bread, are thereby bound, morally speaking, however numerous they may be, into one spiritual body; for this bread of which they all partake has been solemnly consecrated to represent one and the same object, the body of Jesus. The bond which thus unites them to Jesus as their common Head, unites them also to one another as members of the same body. Here is a subsidiary consideration which the apostle adds to the main argument, indicated in 1Co 10:16. And indeed, by taking part in the heathen sacrificial feasts, the Corinthians would not only separate themselves from Christ, to whom they were united in the Supper; they would also break the bond formed by this same ceremony between them and the Church, the body of Christ.

In the use of this term σῶμα, body, Paul passes from the literal sense (the Lord’s body), 1Co 10:16, to the figurative sense (the Church), 1Co 10:17; this passage is natural because of the close relation between the two notions. If we become one and the same spiritual body with one another, it is because we all participate by faith in that one and the same body of Christ, with which we enter into relation in the Supper.

The verb μετέχειν, to partake, is usually construed with a simple genitive; it takes here the preposition ἐκ, of, from: “We all receive (a piece which comes) from the same bread.” This term differs from the more inward expression κοινωνία, communion, in that it denotes external participation in the bread of the Supper. It is obvious that we cannot, with Rodatz and Heinrici, understand the words one body in the sense of: “one body with Christ.” For the matter in question in 1Co 10:17 is the breaking of the bond which unites believers to the Church as a whole.

The apostle quotes as a second example the Jewish sacrificial feasts.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_10:16

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

It is here assumed that partaking of the Lords Supper brings us into communion with Christ. If this be so, partaking of the table of demons must bring us into communion with demons. This is the apostles argument. It is founded on the assumption, that a participation of the cup is a participation of the blood of Christ; and that a participation of the bread is a participation of the body of Christ. So far Romanists, Lutherans, and Reformed agree in their interpretation of this important passage. They all agree that a participation of the cup is a participation of the blood of Christ; and that a participation of the bread, is a participation of the body of Christ. But when it is asked, what is the nature of this participation, the answers given are radically different. The Reformed answer, negatively, that it is not after a corporal or carnal manner. That is, it is not by the mouth, or as ordinary food is received. Affirmatively, they answer that it is by faith, and therefore by the soul. This, of course, determines the nature of the thing partaken of, or the sense in which the body and blood of Christ are received. If the reception is not by the mouth, but by faith, men the thing received is not the material body and blood, but the body and blood as a sacrifice, i.e. their sacrificial virtue. Hence all Reformed churches teach (and even the rubrics of the Church of England), that the body and blood of Christ are received elsewhere man at the Lords table, and without the reception of the bread and wine, which in the Sacrament are their symbols and the organs of communication, as elsewhere the word is that organ. Another point no less clear as to the Reformed doctrine is, that since the body and blood of Christ are received by faith, they are not received by unbelievers.

Romanists answer the above question by saying, that the mouth is the organ of reception; that the thing received is the real body and blood of Christ, into the substance of which the bread and wine are changed by the act of consecration; and consequently, that believers and unbelievers are alike partakers. Lutherans teach, that although the bread and wine remain unchanged, yet, as the body and blood of Christ are locally present in the sacrament, in, with, and under the bread and wine, the organ of reception is the mouth; the thing received is the real body and blood of Christ; and that they are received alike or equally by believers and unbelievers; by the latter, however, to their detriment and condemnation; by the former, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace. Lutherans and Romanists further agree in teaching, that there is a reception of the body and blood of Christ in the Lords Supper, which is elsewhere impossible.

These are the three great forms of doctrine which have prevailed in the Church on this subject; and this passage is interpreted by each party in accordance with their peculiar views. The passage decides no point of difference. If the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation can be elsewhere proved, then, of course, this passage must be understood in accordance with it. And if the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation can be established by other declarations of the Word of God, then this passage must be explained in accordance with that doctrine. But, if it can be clearly demonstrated from Scripture and from those laws of belief which God has impressed upon our nature, that those doctrines are false, then the passage must be understood as teaching a spiritual, and not a corporal participation of Christs body and blood. All that the passage asserts is the fact of a participation, the nature of that participation must be determined from other sources.

The cup of blessing. The word (εὐλογέω), to bless, means,

1. To speak well of.

2. To praise and thank; as when we bless God.

3. To confer blessings, as when God blesses us.

In virtue of the second of these meanings, the word is used interchangeably with (εὐχαριστέω), to give thanks. That is, the same act is sometimes expressed by the one word and sometimes by the other. In Mat_26:26 and Mar_14:22, what is expressed by saying, having blessed, in Luk_22:17, Luk_22:19; and 1Co_11:25, is expressed by saying, having given thanks. And in the account of the Lords Supper in Matthew and Mark, the one word is used in reference to the bread, and the other in reference to the cup. They therefore mean the same thing, or rather express the same act, for that act was both a benediction and thanksgiving; that is, it was an address to God, acknowledging his mercy and imploring his blessing, and therefore may be expressed either by the word benediction or thanksgiving. It is not necessary to infer that in these cases (εὐλογήσας) having blessed is used in the restricted sense of (εὐχαριστήσας) having given thanks. This cannot be the fact, because the object of (εὐλογήσας), at least in some of these passages, is not God, but the bread or the cup. The meaning is, having blessed the bread. The phrase, therefore, the cup of blessing, so far as the signification of the words is concerned, may be rendered either the cup of thanksgiving (the eucharistical cup), or the cup of benediction, the consecrated cup. The latter is no doubt the true meaning, because the explanation immediately follows, which we bless. The cup, and not God, is blessed. To take the phrase actively, the cup which confers blessing is not only inconsistent with usage, but incompatible with the explanation which immediately follows. The cup of blessing is the cup which we bless. In the Paschal service the cup was called the cup of blessing, because a benediction was pronounced over it. The idea of consecration is necessarily included. Wine, as wine, is not the sacramental symbol of Christs blood, but only when solemnly consecrated for that purpose. Even our ordinary food is said to be sanctified by the word of God and prayer, 1Ti_4:5, because it is set apart by a religious service to the end for which it was appointed. So the cup of blessing is the cup which, by the benediction pronounced over it, is set apart from a common to a sacred use.

Which we bless. This is the explanation of the preceding clause. The cup of blessing is the cup which we bless; which can only mean the cup on which we implore a blessing; that is, which we pray may be blessed to the end for which it was appointed, viz. to be to us the communion of the blood of Christ. That is, the means of communicating to us the benefits of Christs death. Just as we bless our food when we pray that God would make it the means of nourishing our bodies. The other interpretations of this clause are unnatural, because they require something to be supplied which is not in the text. Thus some say the meaning is, taking which, or holding which in our hands, or over which, we give thanks. All this is unnecessary, as the words give a perfectly good sense as they stand (ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν), which (cup) we bless. This passage, therefore, seems to determine the meaning of such passages as Mat_26:26 and Mar_14:22, Having blessed (viz. the bread) he brake it. The bread or cup was the thing blessed. Comp. Luk_9:16, where it is said our Lord, having taken the five loaves and the two fishes, and having looked up to heaven, he blessed them. This also shows that having given thanks in such connections means having with thanksgiving implored the blessing of God. The cup therefore is blessed by the prayer, in which we ask that God would make it answer the end of its appointment.

Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? That is, is it not the means of participating of the blood of Christ? He who partakes of the cup, partakes of Christs blood. This, of course, is true only of believers. Paul is writing to believers, and assumes the presence of faith in the receiver. Thus baptism is said to wash away sin, and the word of God is said to sanctify, not from any virtue in them not as an external rite or as words addressed to the outward ear; not to all indiscriminately who are baptized or who hear the word; but as means of divine appointment, when received by faith and attended by the working of his Spirit. The believing reception of the cup is as certainly connected with a participation of Christs blood, as the believing reception of the word is connected with an experience of its life-giving power. The whole argument of the apostle is founded on this idea. He wishes to prove that partaking of the sacrificial feasts of the heathen brought men into real communion with demons, because participation of the Lords supper makes us really partakers of Christ. The word κοινωνία, communion, means participation, from the verb κοινωνέω, to partake of; in Heb_2:14, it is said, Christ took part of flesh and blood. Rom_15:17, the Gentiles took part in the spiritual blessings of the Jews. Hence we have such expressions as the following: participation of his Son, 1Co_1:9; participation of the Spirit, 2Co_13:13. Phi_2:1; participation of the ministry, 2Co_8:4; of the gospel, Phi_1:5; of sufferings, Phi_3:5. Of course the nature of this participation depends on the nature of its object. Participation of Christ is sharing in his Spirit, character, sufferings and glory; participation of the gospel is participation of its benefits; and thus participation of the blood of Christ is partaking of its benefits. This passage affords not the slightest ground for the Romish or Lutheran doctrine of a participation of the substance of Christs body and blood. When in Phi_1:9, it is said, We are called into the fellowship or participation of his Son, it is not of the substance of the Godhead that we partake. And when the Apostle John says, We have fellowship one with another, i.e. we are (κοινωνοί) partners one of another, 1Jo_1:7, he does not mean that we partake of each others corporeal substance. To share in a sacrifice offered in our behalf is to share in its efficacy; and as Christs blood means his sacrificial blood, to partake of his blood no more means to partake of his literal blood, than when it is said his blood cleanses from all sin, it is meant that his literal corporeal blood has this cleansing efficacy. When we are said to receive the sprinkling of his blood, 1Pe_1:1, it does not mean his literal blood.

The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? That is, by partaking of the bread we partake of the body of Christ. This is but a repetition of the thought contained in the preceding clause. The cup is the means of participation of his blood; the bread the means of participation of his body. The body of Christ cannot here mean the church, because his blood is mentioned in the same connection, and because in the institution of the Lords supper the bread is the symbol of Christs literal, and not of his mystical body. To partake of his body, is to partake of the benefits of his body as broken for us. Which we break. This is in evident allusion to the original institution of the sacrament. Our Lord took bread, and having given thanks, he brake it and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you. 1Co_11:24. The whole service, therefore, is often called the breaking of bread. Act_2:42; Act_20:7. The custom, therefore, of using a wafer placed unbroken in the mouth of the communicant, leaves out an important significant element in this sacrament.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Of thanksgiving: whereupon, that holy banquet was called Eucharist, that is, a thanksgiving.

A most effectual pledge and note of our knitting together with Christ, and ingrafting to him.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

The cup of blessing--answering to the Jewish "cup of blessing," over which thanks were offered in the Passover. It was in doing so that Christ instituted this part of the Lord's Supper (Mat 26:27; Luk 22:17, Luk 22:20).

we bless--"we," not merely ministers, but also the congregation. The minister "blesses" (that is, consecrates with blessing) the cup, not by any priestly transmitted authority of his own, but as representative of the congregation, who virtually through him bless the cup. The consecration is the corporate act of the whole Church. The act of joint blessing by him and them (not "the cup" itself, which, as also "the bread," in the Greek is in the accusative), and the consequent drinking of it together, constitute the communion, that is, the joint participation "of the blood of Christ." Compare Co1 10:18, "They who eat . . . are partakers" (joint communicants). "Is" in both cases in this verse is literal, not represents. He who with faith partakes of the cup and the bread, partakes really but spiritually of the blood and body of Christ (Eph 5:30, Eph 5:32), and of the benefits of His sacrifice on the cross (compare Co1 10:18). In contrast to this is to have "fellowship with devils" (Co1 10:20). ALFORD explains, "The cup . . . is the [joint] participation (that is, that whereby the act of participation takes place) of the blood," &c. It is the seal of our living union with, and a means of our partaking of, Christ as our Saviour (Joh 6:53-57). It is not said, "The cup . . . is the blood," or "the bread . . . is the body," but "is the communion [joint-participation] of the blood . . . body." If the bread be changed into the literal body of Christ, where is the sign of the sacrament? Romanists eat Christ "in remembrance of Himself." To drink literal blood would have been an abomination to Jews, which the first Christians were (Lev 17:11-12). Breaking the bread was part of the act of consecrating it, for thus was represented the crucifixion of Christ's body (Co1 11:24). The distinct specification of the bread and the wine disproves the Romish doctrine of concomitancy, and exclusion of the laity from the cup.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 16. The cup of blessing] The apostle speaks here of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the כוס הברכה cos habberacah, cup of blessing, over which thanks were expressed at the conclusion of the passover. See this largely explained at the conclusion of Clarke's notes on "Mt 26:75", and in my Discourse upon the Eucharist, 8vo. 2d edit. 1814.

The communion of the blood of Christ?] We who partake of this sacred cup, in commemoration of the death of Christ, are made partakers of his body and blood, and thus have fellowship with him; as those who partake of an idol feast, thereby, as much as they can, participate with the idol, to whom the sacrifice was offered. This I have proved at large in the above tract, to which I must refer the reader, as the subject is too voluminous to be inserted here.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. The cup of blessing While the sacred Supper of Christ has two elements — bread and wine — he begins with the second. He calls it, the cup of blessing, as having been set apart for a mystical benediction. For I do not agree with those who understand blessing to mean thanksgiving, and interpret the verb to bless, as meaning to give thanks I acknowledge, indeed, that it is sometimes employed in this sense, but never in the construction that Paul has here made use of, for the idea of Erasmus, as to supplying a preposition, is exceedingly forced. On the other hand, the meaning that I adopt is easy, and has nothing of intricacy.

To bless the cup, then, is to set it apart for this purpose, that it may be to us an emblem of the blood of Christ. This is done by the word of promise, when believers meet together according to Christ’s appointment to celebrate the remembrance of his death in this Sacrament. The consecration, however, which the Papists make use of, is a kind of sorcery derived from heathens, which has nothing in common with the pure rite observed by Christians. Everything, it is true, that we eat is sanctified by the word of God, as Paul himself elsewhere bears witness, (1 Timothy 4:5;) but that blessing is for a different purpose — that our use of the gifts of God may be pure, and may tend to the glory of their Author, and to our advantage. On the other hand, the design of the mystical blessing in the Supper is, that the wine may be no longer a common beverage, but set apart for the spiritual nourishment of the soul, while it is an emblem of the blood of Christ.

Paul says, that the cup which has been in this manner blessed is κοινωνίαν — the comnunion of the blood of the Lord. It is asked, in what sense? Let contention be avoided, and there will be nothing of obscurity. It is true, that believers are united together by Christ’s blood, so as to become one body. It is also true, that a unity of this kind is with propriety termed κοινωνία (communion.) I make the same acknowledgment as to the bread Farther, I observe what Paul immediately adds, as it were, by way of explanation — that we all become one body, because we are together partakers of the same bread But whence, I pray you, comes that κοινωνία (communion) between us, but from this, that we are united to Christ in such a way, that

we are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones? (Ephesians 5:30.)

For we must first of all be incorporated (so to speak) into Christ, that we may be united to each other. In addition to this, Paul is not disputing at present merely in reference to a mutual fellowship among men, but as to the spiritual union between Christ and believers, with the view of drawing from this, that it is an intolerable sacrilege for them to be polluted by fellowship with idols. From the connection of the passage, therefore, we may conclude, that (κοινωνίαν) the communion of the blood is that connection which we have with the blood of Christ, when he engrafts all of us together into his body, that he may live in us, and we in him.

Now, when the cup is called a participation, the expression, I acknowledge, is figurative, provided that the truth held forth in the figure is not taken away, or, in other words, provided that the reality itself is also present, and that the soul has as truly communion in the blood, as we drink wine with the mouth. But Papists could not say this, that the cup of blessing is a participation in the blood of Christ, for the Supper that they observe is mutilated and torn: if indeed we can give the name of the Supper to that strange ceremony which is a patchwork of various human contrivances, and scarcely retains the slightest vestige of the institution of our Lord. But, supposing that everything else were as it ought to be, this one thing is at variance with the right use of the Supper — the keeping back of the whole of the people from partaking of the cup, which is the half of the Sacrament.

The bread which we break From this it appears, that it was the custom of the ancient Church to break one loaf, and distribute to every one his own morsel, in order that there might be presented more clearly to the view of all believers their union to the one body of Christ. And that this custom was long kept up appears from the testimony of those who flourished in the three centuries that succeeded the age of the Apostles. Hence arose the superstition, that no one dared to touch the bread with his hand, but each one had it put into his mouth by the priest.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(16) The cup of blessing which we bless.—In other passages the cup is mentioned after the bread, and not, as here, before it. The order in which they are placed here has been variously accounted for, as arising either (Stanley) from the analogy to the heathen feasts, in which the libation came before the food, or (Meyer) because the Apostle intends to dwell at greater length upon the bread. The use of the plural “we,” in reference to both the blessing of the cup and the breaking of the bread, clearly indicates that it was in virtue of his representing the entire company present, and not as individually possessed of some miraculous gift, that the one who presided at a Communion performed the act of consecration. On the whole subject of the Eucharistic feasts in Corinth, see Notes on 1Co_11:17. Communion with the body and blood of Christ is established and asserted in this partaking of the bread and of the cup.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16. The cup of blessing which we bless] Resumption of the argument. First reason against taking part in an idol feast. We communicate together in the Body and Blood of Christ, and we are thereby debarred from communion with any beings alien to Him; a communion into which, by the analogy of all sacrificial rites, we enter with the beings to whom such sacrifices are offered. See 1Co_10:20. The term cup of blessing is a Hebraism for the cup over which a blessing is to be pronounced, whose characteristic it is to be blessed. It was the name given to the cup over which thanks were given at the Passover. Lightfoot.

which we bless] Over which we pronounce the words of blessing and thanksgiving commanded by Christ. See St Luk_22:20 and ch. 1Co_11:25.

is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?] “Comynyng,” Wiclif. See ch. 1Co_5:7. “The word communion is stronger than partaking,” Chrysostom. The idea is that of a meal on a sacrificed victim, which is Christ Himself, the true Paschal Lamb, by feeding on Whom all who partake of Him are made sharers of His Flesh and Blood, and thus are bound together in the closest fellowship with Him. The fact of this Eucharistic feeding upon Christ is adduced as the strongest reason why Christians cannot lawfully take part in idolatrous rites. It is as impossible to exclude here the active sense of “communication” (see note on ch. 1Co_1:9), as it is to confine the word to that signification. It must be taken in the widest possible sense, as including Christ’s feeding His people with His Flesh and Blood, and their joint participation in the same.

The bread which we break] Calvin here characteristically contends that the Eucharistic loaf was handed from one to the other, and that each broke off his share. But it is obvious that the words are such as could be used by any minister of the Christian Church, of the solemn breaking of the bread in obedience to Christ’s command. And it may be further observed that only Christ is said to have broken the bread at the first institution of the Eucharist. The Roman Catholic commentator, Estius, here, however, agrees with Calvin. The breaking of the bread, he says, was first performed “a presbyteris et diaconis,” and afterwards “a caeteris fidelibus.” The language of St Paul is not precise enough to enable us absolutely to decide the point.

the communion of the body of Christ] Wiclif, taking; Tyndale, partaking. See note above on the communion of the Blood.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The cup of blessing, which we bless,.... Meaning the cup of wine used in the Lord's supper, which being set apart for that service, is taken up, and the name of the Lord called upon over it; and he is blessed and praised for his wondrous love and grace, in the gift and mission of his Son, to shed his precious blood for us, for the remission of our sins; the whole church joining with the administrator, both in the act of blessing and praise over the cup, and in the participation of it. This cup is so called in allusion to the cup of wine used at common meals, or at the passover among the Jews, which they used to take and bless God with, and give him thanks for their mercies, and was commonly called , "the cup of blessing" (c).

"Three things (says R. Judah (d)) shorten a man's days and years; when they give him the book of the law to read, and he does not read, , "the cup of blessing to bless with", and he does not bless, and when he accustoms himself to government.''

Again, so they comment on Gen 21:8 (e).

"what is the meaning "of the day that Isaac was weaned?" the holy blessed God will make a feast for the righteous, in the day that he weans the people of the seed of Isaac, and after they eat and drink, they give to Abraham , "the cup of blessing to bless with"; he says to them, I will not bless, because Ishmael sprung from me; they give it to Isaac, he says to them, I am not fit to bless, for Esau came from me; they give it to Jacob, he says unto them I will not bless, for I married two sisters in their lifetime, which the law forbids me; they say to Moses, take it and bless, he says to them I will not bless, for I was not worthy to enter into the land of Israel, neither in life nor in death; they say to Joshua, take it and bless, he says I cannot bless, for I am not worthy of a son, as it is written, Nun his son, Joshua his son; they say to David, take thou it and bless, he saith unto them I will bless, and it is comely for me to bless; as it is said, "I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord".''

Once more they ask (f),

"what is a beautiful cup? , "the cup of blessing";''

and which, they (g) observe, ought to hold the fourth part of a log of wine. These instances clearly show from whence the apostle borrowed this expression, and which he chooses to make use of because well known to the Jews, and as being very appropriate to the cup in the Lord's supper, he is speaking of:

is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? it is; that is, it is a sign, symbol, and token of fellowship with Christ in his death; it is a means of having communion with him, and of enjoying the blessings of grace which come through his blood; such as righteousness, peace, pardon, and atonement; all which true believers are made partakers of; and this part of the Lord's supper, the cup being drank of, is a testimony and an indication of the same: "the bread which we break"; which is the other part of the ordinance, which, though performed first, is mentioned last, because of the argument the apostle pursues upon it. The act of breaking the bread does not only design the distribution and eating of it, but the manner also in which it is prepared for distribution and eating, namely by breaking it into pieces; and which is aptly expressive of the body of Christ, which was wounded, bruised, and broken for us:

is it not the communion of the body of Christ? it is; for not only believers by this act have communion with his mystical body, the church, but with his natural body, which was broken for them they in a spiritual sense and by faith eat his flesh, as well as drink his blood, and partake of him, of his sufferings and death, endured in his body, and of all the blessings of grace consequent thereon. The apostle's view in this instance, and his argument upon it, is this, that if believers, by eating the bread and drinking the wine in the Lord's supper, spiritually partake of Christ, of his body and of his blood, and have communion with him; then such who eat of things sacrificed unto idols, have in so doing communion with them, and partake of the table of devils, and so are guilty of idolatry, which he would have them avoid.

(c) T. Hieros. Beracot, fol. 11. 3, 4. T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 51. 1, 2. & 52. 1. Pesachim, fol. 105. 2. 106. 1. 109. 2. (d) T. Bab. Berncot, fol. 55. 1. (e) Capthor, fol. 47. 1. (f) T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 76. 2. & Erubin, fol. 29. 2. (g) Piske Tosephot in Sabbat, art. 287. & Erubin, art. 46. 157. Vid. Zohar in Exod. fol. 57. 3. & 59. 2, 3. & 65. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Ver. 16. The cup of blessing] Not the chalice, but the common cup. Calvin chose rather to leave Geneva than to use unleavened bread or wafer cakes at the Lord’s supper. ( Diest. de ratione studii Theol.) We may not symbolize with idolaters.

Is it not the communion] Doth it not signify and set forth, yea, as an instrument, effect and exhibit this communion?

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The chalice of benediction,[2] &c. Which the priests bless or consecrate, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, (so called because of the outward appearance of bread) is it not the partaking or communion of the body of the Lord? See St. John Chrysostom here, hom. xxiv. p. 396. and p. 400. See also the Annotations, Matthew xxvi. 26. (Witham) --- Here the apostle puts them in mind of the partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the sacred mysteries, and becoming thereby one mystical body with Christ. From whence he infers, (ver. 21.) that they who are made partakers with Christ, by the eucharistic sacrifice, and sacrament, must not be made partakers with devils, by eating of the meats sacrificed to them. (Challoner)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Calix benedictionis cui, (or as it is in the Greek) quem benedicimus. See St. John Chrysostom, hom. xxiv. No Catholic now-a-days can declare his faith of the real presence in clearer terms than St. John Chrysostom hath in this, and other places: Greek: oti touto en to poterio on, ekeino esti, to apo tes pleuras reusan, &c. He calls the eucharist, Greek: thusian, a sacrifice.

====================

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

It is on all hands agreed, that the apostle is here speaking of believers communicating in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. By

the cup of blessing, he meaneth the cup there, which he so calleth, because we in the taking of it bless the Lord, who gave his Son to die for us, and Christ, for that great love which he showed in dying for us: we are said to bless it, because we, by solemn prayer in the consecration of it, set it apart for that sacred use, and beg of God to bless it to us. This cup (saith the apostle) is the communion of the blood of Christ.

The cup is put for the wine in the cup (which is very ordinary). The cup, or wine, of blessing, signifieth that cup of wine to which the blessing is added, or with which in that holy institution we thankfully remember the death of Christ, and bless his name for that great mercy; and the wine or cup of blessing, also, here signifieth our religions action in drinking of that cup of wine so blessed. This, saith he, is the communion of the blood of Christ; that is, it is an action whereby and wherein Christ communicates himself and his grace to us, and we communicate our souls to him; so that Christ and believers in that action have a mutual communion one with another. And as it is with the one element in that holy sacrament, so it is also with the other.

The bread which the minister breaketh (according to the institution and example of Christ) for the church to make use of in the celebration of the Lord’s supper, that is, their action in eating of that bread so broken and divided amongst them, is the communion of the body of Christ; an action wherein Christians have a fellowship and communion with Christ.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. Cup of blessing—Note on Mat_26:26. Communion is the common ownership of an undivided property; participation or partaking is the taking of a part of the common property for individual use. The Church in common possess the sacramental cup and bread; thereby the Church is one, as the cup and the bread are one.

Is it not… blood—Note Mat_26:26.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The cup of blessing. A translation of the name cos haberachah. (comp., Psa_116:13) over which a blessing was invoked by the head of the family after the Passover. The name is here transferred to the chalice in the Eucharist, over which Christ "gave thanks". (1Co_11:24; Mat_26:27) There seems to be a close connection between the idea of "blessing". (eulogesas, Mat_26:22; Mar_14:22) and "giving thanks". (eucharistesas,, Luk_22:19) and here, as always, St. Paul and St. Luke resemble each other in their expressions. The communion of; literally, a participation in. By means of the cup we realize our share in the benefits wrought by Christ"s precious blood shedding. The cup is at once a symbol and a medium. The blood of Christ; of which the wine is the sacramental symbol. By rightly drinking the wine, we spiritually partake of the blood of Christ, we become sharers in his Divine life. The bread; perhaps rather, the loaf, which was apparently passed from hand to hand, that each might break off a piece. Is it not the communion of the body of Christ? The best comment on the verse is Joh_6:41-59, in which our Lord taught that there could be no true spiritual life without the closest union with him and incorporation into his life.

Vers. 16-22.

The Christian feast.

cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?" etc. The text undoubtedly refers to the feast which Christ instituted the night on which he was betrayed, and the words lead us to look at that feast in two aspects.

I AS A MEDIUM FOR SPIRITUAL COMMUNION. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" The shed blood and broken body of Christ are here regarded, and must ever be regarded, as the effects and expressions of his self sacrificing love. His "flesh" and "blood" mean his spiritual life. What was that spirit life that animated and controlled him? Self sacrificing love. This made him Christ, marked him off from all other men that ever lived; it was the very "body" and "blood" of his soul. When we are commanded, therefore, to eat his flesh and drink his blood, it means that we are to take his spirit into us, his spirit of self sacrificing philanthropy. This spirit is, indeed, the only true food for souls. It alone answers the two great purposes of food it gives strength and satisfaction. No man can become morally strong, or morally satisfied, without appropriating the self sacrificing love of Christ. Now, in the true spiritual celebration of this feast, there is a twofold "communion.

1. A "communion" of the disciples with Christ. They drink in his spirit, and by a living sympathy are brought into a close and. tender fellowship with him. Christ comes in to them and sups with them, and they with him. We are always bringing those with whom we have the strongest sympathy into our inmost being.

2. A "communion" of the disciples with one another. "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." "This verse explains how the breaking of the bread was the significant act, which expressed, sacramentally, the communion of the body of Christ. There is one bread, it is broken in many pieces, and as we all (though each receives only a fragment) partake of the one bread, which, unbroken, consisted of these pieces, we, though many individuals, are one body, even the body of Christ, with whom, as well as with each other, we have communion in that act." All who have a supreme sympathy for one common object will, by a law of their nature, be brought into communion one with another. All hearts will throb with one great feeling, all thoughts will flow into one common channel. Thus all true Christians are united one with another, as all the planets are united by circling round one centre, and deriving therefrom a common impulse, a common life, and a common order.

II AS THE EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE OF CHRISTIANS. Paul speaks in these verses of two other feasts.

1. The feast of the Jewish priesthood. "Behold Israel after the flesh." The Jewish sacrifice was divided, a portion offered on the altar, and a portion taken and eaten.

2. The feast of the idolatrous heathen. "What say I then that the idol is anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything?" etc. The heathen had their feasts; they partook of that which they offered to their gods. But the spirit manifested in the partakers of both of these feasts Jewish or heathenwould exclude from the feast which Christ ordained. In the one there was only a formal respect for Jehovah, and in the other, for demons and evil spirits. "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." None are to be admitted to Christ"s feasts who are not in vital sympathy with him. "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils.

Vers. 16, 17.

Communion.

This passage and another in the following chapter would in themselves suffice to prove the antiquity of the Lord"s Supper. And as this Epistle is of undisputed genuineness, it may be taken as established that the Eucharist has been observed in an unbroken chain from its institution by the Founder of Christianity down to our own days. Important light is cast by these two verses upon the spiritual and social significance of the Supper of the Lord.

I THE HOLY COMMUNION IS A DISTINCTIVE BADGE OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. It is only by recognizing this fact that we understand the introduction of a reference to it in this place. St. Paul was anxious to dissuade the Corinthian Christians from participating in the idolatrous festivals of the heathen. And he brings forward, with this end in view, the distinction between heathenism and Christianity in their characteristic festivals and observances. The Jews had their Passover, the Greeks their eranoi, the early Christians their agapae. The peculiar and distinctive observance of the Christians was, however, the Eucharist. The Corinthians were justly reminded that they must take their stand, that they could not be upon both sides, that they must not at the same time frequent the idol feasts and sit down at the table of the Lord Christ. And this distinction still substantially holds good. And young people especially may justly be urged to take their stand upon the Lord"s side and pledge themselves to Christian fidelity in the ordinance distinctive of the Church of Christ.

II THE HOLY COMMUNION IS A MEANS BY WHICH CHRISTIANS COMMEMORATE THE DEATH OF CHRIST AND PARTAKE OF ITS SPIRITUAL BENEFITS.

1. Prominence is given to our Lord"s death by the mention of his body and his blood. In the following chapter St. Paul expressly reminds his readers that in the sacrament they show (proclaim) his death until he come.

2. But for his purpose the apostle, in this place, lays special stress upon communion in the Lord"s body and blood. Amidst all the diversities of opinion and controversies which have arisen with regard to this sacrament, it may, perhaps, be affirmed that to spiritually minded Christians of all Churches, the observance of the Lord"s Supper has been an act of obedience to Christ, and the means of spiritual union and fellowship with him. The true participation in the Lord"s death is the privilege of the lowly, believing, reverent communicant. Necessary as are food and drink for the sustenance of the bodily life with its functions and activities, equally necessary is it for the spiritual health of the Christian that he should receive Divine nourishment that he should feed by faith upon the Son of God.

III THE HOLY COMMUNION IS A SIGN AND A MEANS OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP. This passage casts light, not only upon the work of Christ and upon the individual appropriation of the benefits of that work, but also upon the character, constitution, and purposes of the Church. It is observable that great stress is laid upon communion, i.e. upon the common interest in the one Saviour and the one salvation, and the mutual regard of interest, confidence, and brotherly love, which is the proper consequence of union to Jesus. The one cup, the one bread, of which all partake, are the symbol of a spiritual unity, Nay, Christians are actually denominated, in virtue of their unity with their Lord and with one another, "one bread, one body." The language must have been startling when first employed; it sounds very strong, even to us who are familiar with it. Yet it expresses the simple and literal truth. A unity which no power on earth could effect, and which no thinker could have conceived, is in course of realization, through the one Saviour and the one Spirit; and of this the Holy Communion is a divinely appointed and effectual witness. T.

The communion of souls in Christ.

These words are uttered in illustration of an important practical principle, which St. Paul is urging as sufficient to guide the Corinthians safely through many of the difficulties of the Christian life. Explain the question, which threatened to break up the unity and peace of the Church at Corinth, whether "a Christian man was justified in eating meat which had been offered in sacrifice to idols." Show under what circumstances of social life this question arose, and the different ways in which persons of different temperament were disposed to treat it. St. Paul in no way encourages superstitious notions, but he pleads that consideration for others and Christian charity will readily decide our conduct in every case that may arise. Having had to refer to the heathen feasts, he is led to think of the one Christian feast. He says that is a sealing of the union of all who love the Lord Jesus Christ; it is a joint partaking as it were of the redemption, and so a community of sentiment and feeling and life which involves that each member shall be concerned for the highest well being of the others, and willing to put his own preferences aside if they stand in the way of his brother"s good. We have two subjects here brought before us,

(1) The reality of the communion of souls in Christ; and

(2) the value of a symbolical least which will assert that communion.

I THE REALITY OF THE COMMUNION OF SOULS IN CHRIST. The word "communion" is often applied to the intercourse of friendship, the fellowship of two kindred souls between whom there is a recognized community of sentiment and feeling. The word is applied to our privilege of access to God; we are said to have communion with God, with his Son Jesus Christ, and with the Holy Ghost. But the term would be more precisely applied to that feeling of mutual interest which two persons have in each other because of their common interest in some object, or common love to some third person. We may not even be personally known to each other, but if we are both interested in the same thing, and working for the same ends, we have "communion" with one another. Illustrate that this is the basis on which societies and associations of men are formed. Those who have the same love to the Lord Jesus Christ feel that they are bound to one another; they gather themselves into Churches that they may have "communion" with each other. Christianity demands love to a Person. It sets forth one Person, the One who is worthy to receive the devotion of every soul. Usually, indeed, if two love one person, there rises a deadly jealousy and hatred between them, but that only springs from the fact that both cannot possess the object of their affection in the same sense; but even here on earth there are many cases in which two may love the same person, and find their common love brings them nearer to each other. You may fall into conversation with a fellow traveller, and may find that you both know and love stone third person, and at once all strangeness passes, and you converse together as do long known friends. Now, the Lord Jesus Christ can be as much to one believer as to another. He can be all to each one, and so there need be no jealousy, but mutual love fur Christ may make it easy for us to love each other. But our text significantly calls our communion the "communion of the blood and body of Christ;" and this we must try to understand. In the story of the heathen gods there is generally some one incident which is regarded as specially characteristic of each one, and from which he may even take his name or fashion his symbol. Something of the same kind may be observed in Scripture and modern biographies. There is some event of the life which is regarded above all others as revealing the man. Thus we have in the Bible, Jacob the supplanter, Moses the meek, impulsive Peter, etc., the qualifying terms recalling some characteristic incident. In the reference of the text to the "body and blood of Christ" we have something of the same kind. Everything in the life of Jesus is of supreme concern to us, but the Christian heart has always regarded the "body breaking and blood shedding" as the characteristic incident, the one so peculiarly significant as revealing the person, the spirit, and the mission of the Lord Jesus. That "body and blood" reveal to us these things duty, love, self sacrifice. This trinity expresses the very essence of Christ"s religion. And "communion in the body and the blood" is the fellowship of those in whom the essential spirit of Christianity is found; who are toned and ruled by duty, out of their sonship to God; by love, because the "love of Christ is shed abroad in their hearts;" by self sacrifice, because the spirit of their Master has become theirs. Those who have thus "communion in the body and the blood" can enter into the meaning and power of that "cup of blessing which we bless," and of that "bread which we break.

II THE VALUE OF A SYMBOLICAL ACT WHICH WILL ASSERT THAT COMMUNION. As in everything, so in respect of symbols, two extremes are possible, and both are to be avoided. He is unhuman who thinks he may refuse the help of any symbol. He is too human who multiplies symbols, glorifies symbols, until they occupy all his thought, and he has no room for the realities of which they should testify. Symbols of spiritual things will be not only useful, they will be necessary, so long as we are in the body. We have embraced spiritual truths, but they came to us in symbolic words; they are represented to us in symbolic acts. There can be no question as to our need of symbols; the only questions concern their character and their kind. Our Lord met our need in the institution of the "Lord"s Supper," the "communion of the body and the blood." We are drawn into a great and tender fellowship as we share together the one loaf, as we make affirmation of our common life in Christ; and our communion finds fitting expression in a gentle patience with our brother"s failings, a loving consideration for even our brother"s prejudices, and a cheerful willingness to put our own preferences aside, if they grieve or hinder our brethren. R. T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The cup which we bless - By setting it apart to a sacred use, and solemnly invoking the blessing of God upon it. Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ - The means of our partaking of those invaluable benefits, which are the purchase of the blood of Christ. The communion of the body of Christ - The means of our partaking of those benefits which were purchased by the body of Christ - offered for us.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

These words are a special argument, made use of by the apostle to dissuade the Christians from joining with the heathens in their impure feasts in the old temples--the Gentiles have fellowship with the idols in those feasts, as Christians have communion with Christ at his holy table.

So that the argument runs thus: "If believers by communicating with Christ at his holy table have real communion with him; then also those that do comminicate with idolaters do become partakers of communion with them in their impure feasts. But believers do the first, namely, at the Lord’s table they communicate with Christ." This he proves form the words before us, The cup of blessing, &c.

Where observe, 1. A description of the Lord’s supper in both the parts of it, namely, The external and visible part, bread and wine; the internal and spiritual part, the body and blood of Christ.

Observe, 2. The ministerial actions performed in this solemn ordinance, and they are the blessing of the cup, and the breaking of the bread.

3. Here is the great end and design of God in the institution of this ordinance, namely, that believers might thereby enjoy a spiritual fellowship and comminion with Christ their head: Is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Learn hence, That one great end and design of Christ in the institution of his supper was this, that believers might enjoy a sweet fellowship and communion with himself therein.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The cup of blessing which we bless [Not the cup which brings blessing (though it does that), but the cup over which blessing is spoken, the cup consecrated by benediction. Wine becomes a symbol of the blood of Christ by such a consecration, and even ordinary food is sanctified by prayer ( 1Ti_4:4-5 . Compare Mat_26:26 ; Luk_9:16 ). But the plural "we" used in this paragraph shows that the blessing and breaking were not the acts of the minister exercising priestly functions, but were the acts of the whole congregation through the minister as their representative. Sacerdotal consecration of the elements is not found here nor anywhere else in the New Testament], is it not a communion of [a participation in or common ownership of] the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? [See Joh_6:41-59 ]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16–22. The cup of blessing which we bless. A name applied to the cup used in the Lord's Supper. Paul shows, from the nature of the Lord's Supper, and of the Jewish sacrificial feasts, that to eat in an idol feast is an idol communion. Is it not the communion of the blood? etc. The symbol of joint participation or fellowship of the blood of Christ. The bread which we break. Is not this symbol of joint participation of Christ's body?

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

16. τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας. The argument is resumed. First reason against taking part in an idol feast. We communicate together in the Body and Blood of Christ, and we are thereby debarred from communion with any beings alien to Him; a communion into which, by the analogy of all sacrificial rites, we enter with the beings to whom such sacrifices are offered. See 1Co 10:20. The term cup of blessing is a Hebraism for the cup over which a blessing is to be pronounced, whose characteristic it is to be blessed. It was the name given to the cup—the third after the Paschal meal—over which thanks were given at the Passover. Lightfoot.

ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν. Over which we pronounce the words of blessing and thanksgiving commanded by Christ. See Luk 22:20, and ch. 1Co 11:25. The cup was ordained to be blessed and we pronounce the blessing. The question arises what is the meaning of ‘we’ here. If we are to interpret the word by 1Co 10:17, it means the whole body of the faithful. And in this case we may suppose that the words of blessing were pronounced by the presiding elder or Bishop, and that the congregation made them their own by ‘the Amen’ (ch. 1Co 14:16) at the end. But see note on κλῶμεν below.

κοινωνία. Literally, ‘the making or sharing in common.’ Hence here it signifies that all share together in the gift of the Blood of Christ. διὰ τὶ μὴ εἶπε, μετοχή, ὅτι πλέον τι ἐβουλήθη, καὶ πολλὴν ἐνδείξασθαι τὴν συνάφειαν· οὐ γὰρ τῷ μετέχειν μόνον καὶ μεταλαμβάνειν ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἐνουσθαι κοινωνοῦμεν. Chrysostom. Plato (Phaedo 65 A, 80 E) uses it of the mutual relations of soul and body. Aristotle uses it in the sense of interchange, as of words, Nic. Eth. IV. 8; of commercial intercourse, 1Co 10:5; of the intercourse of a father with his sons, VIII. 14. Generally, it includes both the act of association with others and its results. The idea here is that of a meal on a sacrificed victim, which is Christ Himself, the true Paschal Lamb, by feeding on Whom all who partake of Him are made sharers of His Flesh and Blood, and thus are bound together in the closest fellowship with Him and with each other. The fact of this Eucharistic feeding upon Christ is adduced as the strongest reason why Christians cannot lawfully take part in idolatrous rites. It is as impossible to exclude here the active sense of ‘communication’ (see note on ch. 1Co 1:9), as it is to confine the word to that signification. It must be taken in the widest possible sense, as including Christ’s feeding His people with His Flesh and Blood, and their joint participation in the same.

τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν. Calvin here characteristically contends that the Eucharistic loaf was handed from one to the other, and that each broke off his share. But it is obvious that the words are such as could be used by any minister of the Christian Church, of the solemn breaking of the bread in obedience to Christ’s command. And it may be further observed that only Christ is said to have broken the bread at the first institution of the Eucharist. The Roman Catholic commentator, Estius, here, however, agrees with Calvin. The breaking of the bread, he says, was first performed ‘a presbyteris et diaconis,’ and afterwards ‘a caeteris fidelibus.’ The language of St Paul is not precise enough to enable us absolutely to decide the point. See note on εὐλογοῦμεν.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16.] The analogy of the Lord’s Supper, which, in both its parts, is a participation in Christ. The stress throughout to ver. 20, is on κοινωνία, and κοινωνοί.

τὸ ποτήριον is the accus., by attr. corresponding to τὸν ἄρτον.

τὸ π. τῆς εὐλ.] i.e. ὃ εὐλογοῦντες κατασκευάζομεν (Œc.), as explained immediately by ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν,—over which we speak a blessing, the Christian form of the Jewish כּוֹם בְּרָכָה, the cup in the Passover over which thanks were offered after the feast,—in blessing of which cup, our Lord instituted this part of the ordinance: see Lightfoot in loc., and note on the history in Mat_26. The rendering of Olsh., al., the cup which brings a blessing, is wrong, as being against this analogy.

ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν] which we bless, i.e. consecrate with a prayer of thanksgiving: not, as Erasmus, Beza, ‘quod cum gratiarum actione sumimus’ (περὶ οὗ εὐχαριστοῦμεν). Observe, the first person plural is the same throughout: the blessing of the cup, and the breaking of the bread, the acts of consecration, were not the acts of the minister, as by any authority peculiar to himself, but only as the representative of the οἱ πάντες, the whole Christian congregation (and so even Estius, but evading the legitimate inference). The figment of sacerdotal consecration of the elements by transmitted power, is as alien from the apostolic writings as it is from the spirit of the Gospel.

κοινωνία] the participation (i.e. that whereby the act of participation takes place) of the Blood of Christ? The strong literal sense must here be held fast, as constituting the very kernel of the Apostle’s argument. The wine is the Blood, the bread is the Body, of Christ. (In what sense the Blood and the Body, does not belong to the present argument.) We receive into us, make by assimilation parts of ourselves, that wine, that bread: we become therefore, by participation of that Bread, one Bread, i.e. one Body: hence the close and literal participation in and with Christ. If we are to render this ἐστιν, represents or symbolizes, the argument is made void. On the other band it is painful to allude to, though necessary to reprobate, the caricature of this real union with Christ which is found in the gross materialism of transubstantiation. See further on ch. 11:26, 27.

ὃν κλῶμεν] probably already the breaking of the bread in the communion was part of the act of consecration, and done after the example of our Lord in its institution. See ch. 11:24; Act 2:42, Act 2:20:7, Act 2:11. For the rest, see above.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16. Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας. ‘The cup of the blessing,’ i.e. over which a benediction is pronounced by Christian ministers, as by Christ at the Last Supper. It does not mean ‘the cup which brings a blessing,’ as is clear from what follows. We know too little about the ritual of the Passover at the time of Christ to be certain which of the Paschal cups was the cup of the Institution. There was probably a Paschal ‘cup of the thanksgiving’ or ‘blessing,’ and the expression here used may come from that, but the addition of ‘which we bless’ in our Christian assemblies shows that the phrase is used with a fuller meaning. Cf. ποτήριον σωτηρίον (Psa 115:4). Εὐλογεῖν and εὐχαριστεῖν express two aspects of the same action: see on 11:24. The plurals, εὐλογοῦμεν and κλῶμεν, do not necessarily mean that the whole congregation took part in saying the benediction or thanksgiving and in breaking the bread, except so far as the minister represented the whole body. The Apostle is speaking of Christian practice generally, without going into details. See notes on 11:23-25, where he does give some details, and cf. Act 2:42, Act 2:46. Evans enlarges on the εὖ in εὐλογοῦμεν, ‘over which we speak the word for good,’ and concludes, “the bread and wine, after their benediction or consecration, are not indeed changed in their nature, but become in their use and their effects the very body and blood of Christ to the worthy receiver.”

οὐχὶ κοινωνία ἐστὶν τ. αἵμ. τ. Χριστοῦ; ‘Is it not communion in the Blood of Christ?’ The RV. margin has ‘participation in.’ But ‘partake’ is μετέχειν: κοινωνεῖν is ‘to have a share in’; therefore κοινωνία is ‘fellowship’ rather than ‘participation.’ This is clear from what follows respecting the bread. It is better not to put any article before ‘communion’ or ‘fellowship.’ AV. has ‘the,’ which is justifiable, for κοινωνία, being the predicate, does not need the article. RV. has ‘a,’ which is admissible, but is not needed. Strangely enough, Vulg. varies the translation of this important word; communicatio sanguinis, but participatio corporis: communito (Beza) is better than either. As κοινωνεῖν is ‘to give a share to’ as well as ‘to have a share in.’ communicatio is a possible rendering of κοινωνία. The difference between ‘participation’ and ‘fellowship’ or ‘communion’ is the difference between having a share and having the whole. In Holy Communion each recipient has a share of the bread and of the wine, but he has the whole of Christ: οὐ γὰρ τῷ μετέχειν μόνον καὶ μεταλαμβάνειν ἀλλὰ τῷ ἑνοῦσθαι κοινοῦμεν (Chrys.).*

Here, as in Luk 22:17, and in the Didache 9, the cup is mentioned first, and this order is repeated v. 21; but in the account of the Institution (11:23) the usual order is observed. ‘This may be in order to give prominence to the Blood-shedding, the characteristic act of Christ’s sacrifice, and also to bring the eating of the bread into immediate juxtaposition with the eating at heathen sacrifices. As regards construction, τὸ ποτήριον and τὸν ἄρτον are attracted to the case of the relatives which follow.

ὃν κλῶμεν. It is clear from εὐχαριστήσας (11:24) that St Paul does not mean to limit εὐλογοῦμεν to the cup: there was a benediction or thanksgiving over this also. There is no action with regard to the cup which would be parallel to breaking the bread, and therefore we cannot say that κλῶμεν is equivalent to, or a substitute for, εὐλογοῦμεν. Not would “πίνομεν correspond to κλῶμεν”: eating would correspond to drinking, and both are assumed. The transition from the Body of Christ to the Church, which in another sense is His Body, is easily made, but it is not made here: that comes in the next verse.

It is evident from 11:18f. that the mention of the cup before the bread here does not imply that in celebrating the rite the cup ever came first. Here he is not describing the rite, but pointing out a certain similarity between the Christian rite and pagan rites. Ramsay (Exp. Times, March 1910, p. 252) thinks that he names the cup first “partly because the more important part of the pagan ceremony lay in the drinking of the wine, and partly because the common food in the pagan ceremony was not bread, but something eaten out of a dish,” which was one and the same for all. To this we may add that in the heathen rite it seems to have been usual for each worshipper to bring his own loaf. The worshippers drank out of the same cup and took sacrificial meat out of the same dish, but they did not partake of the same bread: εἷς ἄρτος was not true of them (Hastings, DB. v. p. 132 b). This is said to be “the usual practice of simple Oriental meals, in which each guest has his own loaf, though all eat from a common dish.” There was therefore less analogy between the heathen bread and the Christian bread than between the heathen cup and the Christian cup, and for this reason also the cup may have been mentioned first. For this reason again he goes on (v. 17) to point out the unity implied in the bread of the Christian rite. The single loaf is a symbol and an instrument of unity, a unity which obliterates the distinction between Jew and Gentile and all social distinctions. There is only one Body, the Body of Christ, the Body of His Church, of which each Christian is a member. That is the meaning of ‘This is My Body.’

The main point to which the Apostle is leading his readers, is that to partake ceremonially of the Thing Sacrificed is to become a sharer in the Sacrificial Act, and all that that involves.

It is not easy to decide whether the first ἐστιν should follow κοινωνία (A B P, Copt. Arm.) or Χριστοῦ (א C D E F G K L, Latt.). Probably the latter order arose through assimilation to the position of the second ἐστιν. A and a few other authorities put the second ἐστιν after the second κοινωνία, probably for assimilation. א B C D F K L P have the second ἐστιν after Χριστοῦ. For the second Χριστοῦ, D* F, Latt. have Κυρίου.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The cup of blessing [το ποτηριον της ευλογιας] . Lit., the blessing : the cup over which the familiar formula of blessing is pronounced. Hence the Holy Supper was often styled Eulogia (Blessing). For blessing, see on blessed, 1Pe 1:3. It is the same as eucharistia (thanksgiving), applied as the designation of the Lord 's Supper : Eucharist. See ch. 1Co 14:16; 1Ti 4:4, 5. The cup is first mentioned, perhaps, because Paul wishes to dwell more at length on the bread; or possibly, because drinking rather than eating characterized the idol - feasts.

Communion [κοινωνια] . Or participation. See on fellowship, 1Jo 1:3; Act 2:42; partners, Luk 5:10. The Passover was celebrated by families, typifying an unbroken fellowship of those who formed one body, with the God who had passed by the blood - sprinkled doors.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.