1 Corinthians 10:21

10:21 Believers should avoid participating in religious meals eaten in a pagan temple (see 8:10), because those united to the Lord (Christ) cannot simultaneously be united to demons (see 2 Cor 6:14-16).

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

1Co 10:21. Οὐ δύνασθε) ye cannot, without very great sin.—Κυρίου, of the Lord) Christ.—τραπέζης Κυρίου, of the Lord’s table) The Lord’s Supper is a feast, not a sacrifice; on a table, not on an altar.

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

1Co_10:21 gives the ground of the foregoing οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κ.τ.λ[1692]

οὐ δύνασθε] of moral impossibility. Nihil convenit inter Christum et impios daemones; utrisque serviri simul non potest nisi cum insigni contumelia Christi, Erasmus, Paraph. Comp 2Co_6:15.

ποτήριον Κυρίου] a cup having reference to the Lord, i.e. according to 1Co_10:16 : a cup which brings into communion with Christ. Its analogue is a ποτήριον δαιμονίων; the latter was quoad eventum, according to 1Co_10:20, the cup out of which men drank at the sacrificial feast, inasmuch as the whole feast, and therefore also the wine used at it, even apart from the libation (which Grotius, Munthe, Michaelis, de Wette, and others suppose to be meant), made the partakers to be κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμον. (1Co_10:20).

τραπέζης Κυρίου] refers to the whole κυριακὸν δεῖπνον, 1Co_11:20. Instances of μετέχειν with τραπέζης, and like expressions, may be seen in Loesner, Obss. p. 288.

[1692] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

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 10:21-22 . This lively apostrophe sets in the strongest light the inconsistency of Cor [1537] Christians who conform to idolatry, the untenability of their position. “You cannot drink the Lord’s cup and the cup of demons ” the two together! “You cannot partake of the Lord’s table and the table of demons !” cf. the τίς μετοχή , κοινωνία , κ . τ . λ .; of. 2Co 6:14 ff., and other parls. The nouns forming the obj [1538] are anarthrous as being qualitative, the impossibility lying in the kind of the two cups; cf. note on 1Co 2:5 . “The Lord’s cup” is that received at His direction and signifying allegiance to Him; in 1Co 10:16 , “the cup of (His) blessing.” Possibly, P. alludes here to Mal 1:7 ; Mal 1:12 , where ‘the table” signifies “the altar of Jehovah”; but the expression is borrowed without this identification. In this context table and altar are essentially distinguished; the altar supplies the table ( cf. Heb 13:10 ). “S. Coena convivium, non sacrificium; in mensa, non in altari” (Bg [1539] ). The τράπεζα includes the ποτήριον and ἄρτος of 1Co 10:16 together. This passage gives its name of “the Lord’s Table” to the Eucharist. “Or (is it that) we provoke the Lord to jealousy?” is this what we mean by eating at both tables? Paul includes himself in this question; such conduct is conceivable in his case, since he had no scruple against the idolothyta on their own account (see 1Co 10:8 , 1Co 9:1 ). Deu 32:21 (neighbouring the previous allusion of 20) sufficiently indicates the result of such insolence: see other O.T. parls. For this argumentative ἢ in Paul’s questions, cf. 1Co 6:9 , etc., 1Co 9:6 . If the Cor [1540] are daring Christ’s sovereign displeasure by coquetting with idolatry, they must suppose themselves “stronger than He”! As sensible and prudent men they must see the absurdity, as well as the awful peril, of such double-dealing: cf. Deu 32:6 ; Deu 32:28 f. ἰσχυρός (1Co 1:25 ) implies inherent, personal strength. Of the δύναμις τ . κυρ . Ἰησοῦ Ρ . had given a solemn impression in ch. 1Co 5:4 f.; cf. 2Co 13:3 f.

[1537] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1538] grammatical object.

[1539] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.

[1540] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

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

Vv. 21, 22. “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of demons; 22. or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than He?”

Edwards thinks that the matter in question here is an impossibility in point of fact. The heart cannot at the same time receive the holy inspirations of Christ and the impure influences of demons. But in that case the apostle would have used words of a more inward and spiritual character than cup and table. The impossibility is rather one of right: “You cannot morally, that is to say, without self-contradiction, and drawing down on you a terrible judgment, take part at the same time in two worships so opposite to one another.” The cup of demons is an expression easily understood, when we remember that in the solemn feasts of the ancients the consecration of the banquet took place with that of the cup, accompanied by the libation in honour of the gods. The first cup was offered to Jupiter; the second to Jupiter and the Nymphs; the third to Jupiter Soter. To participate in these three cups which circulated among the guests, was not this to do an act of idolatry, and to put oneself under the power of the spirit of evil, as really as the Jew by sacrificing put himself under the influence of Jehovah, and the Christian by communicating under that of Christ? Materially, no doubt, it was possible to act thus, but not without criminal inconsistency. And what proves that this is the meaning of the: Ye cannot, is the fact that, in the sequel, Paul expressly states that the Corinthians already venture to act thus; for he declares the fate which awaits them if they persist (1Co 10:22).

Vv. 22. The ἤ is taken in its usual sense in Paul’s writings: “Or if, notwithstanding.” In other words: “Or if you will persist in acting thus, do you know what you are doing, and to what you expose yourselves? You provoke in the heart of God that more terrible fire than the fire of wrath, which is called jealousy!” What is the hatred vowed against a declared enemy in comparison with the fury which falls on an unfaithful spouse? The term παραζηλοῦν, to excite to jealousy, is taken from Deu 32:21: “They have provoked me to jealousy by that which is not God” (idols put in the place of God). The text says briefly: “Do we provoke to jealousy?” Holsten regards this indicative as inadmissible, and thinks the meaning of the subjunctive to be indispensable: “Would we provoke (παραζηλῶμεν)?” He therefore takes the termination ουμεν to be an irregular subjunctive form, like that which is supposed to be found in 1Co 4:6 and Gal 4:17 (see on the first of these passages). But the supposition seems to me unnecessary. The indicative signifies: “Are we truly acting thus?” The form supposes that it was really being done; and this is certainly what is proved by the saying 1Co 8:10, which has by no means the effect of a supposition without reality.

The apostle alludes to the maxim whereby the strong Corinthians justified their carnal conduct: “All things are lawful for us.” — The communicative form: Do we go the length of...? Are we...? serves to soften the severity of the merciless irony: stronger than God...? The term κύριος, Lord, might be applied to God, as is usually the case in passages quoted from the Old Testament. But I rather think, with de Wette, Meyer, Hofmann, following the 1Co 10:4; 1Co 10:9; 1Co 10:21, that in this case Paul applies it to Christ.

And now, after having adjusted this burning question, the apostle reverts in a calmer tone to the less difficult one, of the use of offered meats, giving a few very simple and precise practical rules on the subject, which flow from the principles laid down in the foregoing chapters. 1Co 10:23-24; 1Co 10:32-33, prove that these injunctions are specially addressed to the strong (see Heinrici and Holsten).

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_10:21

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table, and of the table of devils.

The cup of the Lord is that cup which brings us into communion with the Lord, 1Co_10:16; the cup of devils is that cup which brings us into communion with devils. The reference is not exclusively or specially to the cup of libation, or to the wine poured out as an offering to the gods, but to the cup from which the guests drank at these sacrificial feasts. The whole service had a religious character; all the provisions, the wine as well as the meat, were blessed in the name of the idol, and thereby consecrated to him, in a manner analogous to that in which the bread and the wine on the Lords table were consecrated to him; comp. 1Sa_9:12, 1Sa_9:13. The table of the Lord is the table at which the Lord presides, and at which his people are his guests. The table of devils is the table at which devils preside, and at which all present are their guests. What the apostle means to say is, that there is not merely an in congruity and inconsistency in a mans being the guest and friend of Christ and the guest and friend of evil spirits, but that the thing is impossible. It is as impossible as that the same man should be black and white, wicked and holy at the same time. In neither case is this attendance an empty, ineffective service. A man cannot eat of the table of demons without being brought under their power and influence; nor can we eat of the table of the Lord, without being brought into contact with him, either to our salvation or condemnation. If we come thoughtlessly, without any desire after communion with Christ, we eat and drink judgment to ourselves. But if we come with a humble desire to obey our divine master and to seek his presence, we cannot fail to be welcomed and blessed. Compare, in reference to this verse, 2Co_6:14-18.

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

The heathen and profane people were wont to shut up and make an end of their feasts which they kept to the honor of their gods, in offering meat offerings and drink offerings to them, with banquets and feastings.

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

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord--really and spiritually; though ye may outwardly (Kg1 18:21).

cup of devils--in contrast to the cup of the Lord. At idol feasts libations were usually made from the cup to the idol first, and then the guests drank; so that in drinking they had fellowship with the idol.

the Lord's table--The Lord's Supper is a feast on a table, not a sacrifice on an altar. Our only altar is the cross, our only sacrifice that of Christ once for all. The Lord's Supper stands, however, in the same relation, analogically, to Christ's sacrifice, as the Jews' sacrificial feasts did to their sacrifices (compare Mal 1:7, "altar . . . table of the Lord"), and the heathen idol feasts to their idolatrous sacrifices (Isa 65:11). The heathen sacrifices were offered to idol nonentities, behind which Satan lurked. The Jews' sacrifice was but a shadow of the substance which was to come. Our one sacrifice of Christ is the only substantial reality; therefore, while the partaker of the Jew's sacrificial feast partook rather "of the altar" (Co1 10:18) than of GOD manifested fully, and the heathen idol-feaster had fellowship really with demons, the communicant in the Lord's Supper has in it a real communion of, or fellowship in, the body of Christ once sacrificed, and now exalted as the Head of redeemed humanity.

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 21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord] It is in vain that you who frequent these idol festivals profess the religion of Christ, and commemorate his death and passion in the holy eucharist; for you can not have that fellowship with Christ which this ordinance implies, while you are partakers of the table of demons. That the Gentiles, in their sacrifices, fed on the slain beasts, and ate bread and drank wine in honour of their gods, is sufficiently clear from various accounts. See my Discourse on the Holy Eucharist, where many examples are produced. The following from Virgil, AEn. viii, verse 179-273, is proof in point:-

Tum lecti juvenes certatim araeque sacerdos

Viscera tosta ferunt taurorum, onerantque canistris

Dona laboratae Cereris, Bacchumque ministrant.

Vescitur AEneas simul et Trojana juventus

Perpetui tergo bovis et lustralibus extis.-----

Quare agite, O juvenes, tantarum in munere laudum,

Cingite fronde comas, et pocula porgite dextris,

Communemque vocate Deum, et date vina volentes.

The loaves were served in canisters; the wine

In bowls; the priests renewed the rites divine:

Broiled entrails are their food, and beef's continued chine

Ye warlike youths, your heads with garlands crown,

Fill high the goblets with a sparkling flood,

And with deep draughts invoke our common god.

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

(21, 22) Ye cannot . . .—Here follows the special reason why the Apostle desires them not to partake of the wine poured forth in libation to devils, or the table on which meat sacrificed to these devils was spread out as food. Such would deprive them of their participation in the cup of the Lord and the table on which the Lord’s Supper was placed. Of course the impossibility was moral, not physical. So the Apostle adds the warning question, Do you in fact do so? Do you do that which is morally impossible, and so provoke the jealousy of our jealous God, who will have no divided allegiance? Surely we are not stronger than He? To such a question there can be but one answer. These words, which are the climax of the argument, are naturally suggested by the passage in Deuteronomy (Deu_32:15-18), which was evidently in the Apostle’s mind all through this argument, containing as it does the striking words, “Rock of his salvation.” “They sacrifice unto devils and not to God,” and “they provoked Him to jealousy.”

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

21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils] See note on 1Co_10:18, and for the nature of heathen sacrifices note on 1Co_8:1. The cup of devils was the libation with which the meal commenced. It was the cup of devils (1) because it was the cup of worship to beings other than God, which He Whose name was Jealous (Exo_34:14; cf. Exo_20:5) and Who ‘will not give His glory to another’ (Isa_42:8) had forbidden, and (2) because the worship of many of the gods was a distinct homage to the powers of evil, by reason of its polluting nature. Such worship obviously unfitted those who took part in it for fellowship with Christ. Cf. also 2Co_6:15-16.

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.

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils,.... Not only they ought not, but they could not rightly, truly, and really drink the cup of wine in the Lord's supper, in the true faith of Christ's bloodshed, and his sacrifice offered up for them, in remembrance of his love, and to the honour of his name; and also the cup of wine of libations, poured out and drank to the honour of the Heathen deities; these things are utterly inconsistent; no man can serve two masters, God and mammon, or God and Baal; nor is there any concord between Christ and Belial, or agreement between the temple of God and idols:

ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils; no man can spiritually, however he may externally partake of the entertainment provided, on the table of the Lord, at his supper instituted and kept in commemoration of him; and also with gust and pleasure, and without any concern for the peace of weak minds, and the honour of God, eat things set upon a table in an idol's temple, and before the idol, and as sacrificed unto it.

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

21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.

Ver. 21. Partakers of the Lord’s table] Name and thing. The Popish opinion of mass was, that it might not be celebrated but upon an altar, or at least upon a superaltare, which must have its prints and carects, or else the thing was not thought to be lawfully done. Our communion table they call an oyster board. (Acts and Mon.)

And the table of devils] Redwald, king of East Saxons, had in the same church one altar for Christian religion, and another for sacrifice to devils. (Camden.)

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.

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord ... - This does not mean that they had no physical ability to do this, or that it was a natural impossibility; for they certainly had power to do it. But it must mean that they could not “consistently” do it. It was not fit, proper, decent. They were solemnly bound to serve and obey Christ, they had devoted themselves to him, and they could not, consistently with these obligations, join in the worship of demons. This is a striking instance in which the word “cannot” is used to denote not natural but moral inability.

And the cup of devils - Demons; 1Co 10:20. In the feasts in honor of the gods, wine was poured out as a libation, or drank by the worshippers; see Virgil, Aeneas viii. 273. The custom of drinking “toasts” at feasts and celebrations arose from this practice of pouring out wine, or drinking in honor of the pagan gods; and is a practice that still partakes of the nature of paganism. It was one of the abominations of paganism to suppose that their gods would be pleased with the intoxicating drink. Such a pouring out of a libation was usually accompanied with a prayer to the idol god, that he would accept the offering; that he would be propitious; and that he would grant the desire of the worshipper. From that custom the habit of expressing a sentiment, or proposing a toast, uttered in drinking wine, has been derived. The toast or sentiment which now usually accompanies the drinking of a glass in this manner, if it means anything, is now also a “prayer.” But to whom? To the god of wine? To a pagan deity? Can it be supposed that it is a prayer offered to the true God; the God of purity? Has Yahweh directed that prayer should be offered to Him in such a manner? Can it be acceptable to Him? Either the sentiment is unmeaning, or it is a prayer offered to a pagan god, or it is mockery of Yahweh; and in either case it is improper and wicked. And it may as truly be said now of Christians as in the time of Paul. “Ye cannot consistently drink the cup of the Lord at the communion table, and the cup where a prayer is offered to a false god, or to the dead, or to the air; or when, if it means anything, it is a mockery of Jehovah.” Now can a Christian with any more consistency or propriety join in such celebrations, and in such unmeaning or profane libations, than he could go into the temple of an idol, and partake of the idolatrous celebrations there?

And of the table of devils - Demons. It is not needful to the force of this that we should suppose that the word means necessarily evil spirits. They were not God; and to worship them was idolatry. The apostle means that Christians could not consistently join in the worship that was offered to them, or in the feasts celebrated in honor of them.

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

In all this discourse, a comparison is instituted between the Christian host and oblation, its effects, conditions and properties, with the altars, hosts, sacrifices and immolations of the Jews and Gentiles; which the apostle could not have done, had there not been a proper sacrifice in the Christian worship. The holy Fathers teach the same with the ancient Councils. This in the council of Nice: The lamb of God laid upon the altar. Conc. Ephes., The unbloody service of the sacrifice. In St. Cyril of Alexandria, in Conc. Ephes., Anath. 11, The quickening holy sacrifice; the unbloody host and victim. Tertullian, de coron. milit., The propitiatory sacrifice both for the living and the dead. This Melchisedech did most singularly prefigure in his mystical oblation of bread and wine; this also according to the prophecy of Malachias, shall continue from the rising to the setting sun, a perpetual substitute for all the Jewish sacrifices; and this, in plain terms, is called the Mass, by St. Augustine, Serm. ccli. 91.; Conc. Cartha. ii. chap. 3. 4. chap. 84. Milevit. 12.; St. Leo, ep. 81. 88. chap. 2.; St. Gregory, lib. ii. ep. 9. 92. &c. &c. See next chapter ver. 24.

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).

The cup of the Lord: we may either take the phrase as signifying all religious communion under one great act of religion, or as particularly signifying having a communion with Christ in the ordinance of the Lord’s supper, which is called

the cup of the Lord, either because God hath instituted and appointed the drinking of it, or because it is done for the honour, glory, and remembrance of our Lord Christ, to remember his death until he come, as the apostle speaketh, 1Co 11:26. This the apostle tells them they could not drink of, that is, not rightly, and with a good conscience; or not really; no man that is an idolater, or hath communion with idolaters in their idolatrous acts, can have communion with Christ. The same is meant by

the Lord’s table, and the table of devils. So as I cannot see how either an idolatrous church can be a true church, or an idolater a true Christian, unless we will assert, that a body of people may be a true church, that can have no communion with Christ; or a man may be a true Christian, and yet have no communion with Christ. Idolatry, doubtless, both divides the soul from Christ, as he is the Head of a believer, and as he is the Head of the church. To call any body of idolaters a true church, either morally, or metaphysically, is to say to those: Ammi, You are the Lord’s people, to whom God hath said, Lo-ammi. Let them be what they will, the name of a church belongeth not to them, if (as the apostle affirmeth) they can have no communion with Christ.

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

21. Cannot—Ye can do one or the other; but ye cannot do both. It is a cannot arising from the incompatibility of the two things. It was the contrariety of the kingdoms of light and of darkness, and the apostle solemnly warns them to beware on which side they stand.

Cup of the Lord—The Jehovah of the Old Testament, who was at war with all idolatries, the Christ of the New Testament, who is establishing the kingdom of light on earth.

Cup of devils—This refers to the festal cup at the pagan sacrifices, from which the libations were poured forth, symbolizing the treating the god with wine. “Wherefore,” says Eneas in Virgil, “come forth, O youths, and in honour of so much excellence, wreath your foreheads, bring forth the cups, invoke the common deity, and present your wines.” Whatsoever Jew drank of these cups or ate the meats was denounced as an apostate.

Lord’s table—The Rhemish (Romanistic) commentator makes here a desperate effort to show that St. Paul sustains the doctrine that in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper there is a living victim, Christ, repeatedly and literally sacrificed upon an altar. His opponent, Dr. Fulke, very truly replied that neither the word victim, sacrifice, or altar is once used. The Christian holy sacrament is simply selected as the opposite image to the heathen sacrificial feasts, to present strongly the contrast by which the Christian is forbidden to be sharer in the other.

Doubtless as being the successor of, and substitute for, the sacrifices of the old covenant to figure one real sacrifice, once and for evermore offered, the sacrament may be viewed as a symbolic sacrifice. It sustains the same relation that baptism does to circumcision, and that our Sunday holy-day does to the Jewish sabbath. Hence very beautifully did the Council of Ephesus say, “We celebrate in the Churches the un-bloody service of the sacrifice.” And here, as the Council by the word “un-bloody” recognises that the wine is no literal blood, so it follows that the sacrifice is of no literal victim.

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

Ye cannot. It is a moral impossibility that you should. The Lord"s table. This is the first instance in which this expression is used, and it has originated the name. The table of devils. (see Deu_32:37) In the fine legend of Persephone, she might have been altogether liberated from the nether world if she had eaten nothing since her sojourn there; but unhappily she had eaten something, though it was only the few grains of a pomegranate; and hence she must leave the upper air, and become the Queen of Hades.

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

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils - You cannot have communion with both.

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

That is, "Ye cannot have communion with Christ and with idolaters too: your comminicating with Christ in the Lord’s supper is utterly inconsistent with communicating with devils in the idol’s feasts, for this were to do homage to two contrary lords, God and Satan, and to profess service to both."

Here observe, 1. A sacramental table described: it is the table of the Lord; so called, because he that is Lord of lords did institute it for the remembrance of his own death.

Observe, 2. An impossibility declared, that none can be worthy partakers at the Lord’s table that hold communion with sin: true, idolatry is the sin here specified, or sacrificing unto devils; but it holds true of all sin in general, and of having fellowship with Satan in any of the unfruitful works of darkness.

Learn hence, That no person can really enjoy any fellowship and communion with Christ at his holy table, who maintains correspondence with sin, and holds communion with Satan.

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

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons . [At the sacrificial feasts of the pagans the provisions and wine were both blessed in the name of the idol, and thereby consecrated to him. Part of the festal cup was poured out as a libation to the idol, after which the guests drank of the cup and thus had fellowship with the idol. See Æneid 8:273. Outwardly, Christians might partake of both feasts, but it was a moral impossibility for them to do so inwardly and spiritually. We can not be wicked and holy any more than we can be black and white at the same time. We may also note that there were tables in the temples of the idols on which feasts were prepared.]

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.

21. Ye cannot drink, etc. So inconsistent are the two with each other that no man can commune with Christ who partakes of the feast of the demon. Cup of devils. The libations offered at the idol sacrifices. A part of the cup was poured on the altar, and a part drunk by the offerers. See Æneid 8:273. Table of devils. The table in the idol temple where a feast was spread.

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.

21. οὐ δύνασθε … πίνειν. See note on 1Co 10:18, and for the nature of heathen sacrifices note on 1Co 8:1. The cup of daemons was the libation with which the meal commenced. It was the cup of daemons (1) because it was the cup of worship to beings other than God, which He Whose name was Jealous (Exo 34:14; cf. Exo 20:5) and Who ‘will not give His glory to another’ (Isa 42:8) had forbidden, and (2) because the worship of many of the gods was a distinct homage to the powers of evil, by reason of its polluting nature. Such worship obviously unfitted those who took part in it for fellowship with Christ. Cf. also 2Co 6:15-16.

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.

21.] Reason of the οὐ θέλω,—sententiously expressed without γάρ.

οὐ δύνασθε applies of course to the real spiritual participation of the table of the Lord so as to profit by it: to moral possibility. The ποτήριον δαιμονίων is said as corresponding to the cup of which mention has been already made, not as Grot., al., and De Wette fancy, referring to the libation at an idol feast.

τράπεζα is said by Pollux vi. 12 (Suicer) to be used in the sense of τὰ σιτία τὰ ἐπʼ αὐτῶν τῶν τραπεζῶν τιθέμενα. Compare the description in Herod. iii. 18, of the Ἡλίου τράπεζα,—Polyb. iv. 35. 4, ὥστε περὶ τὸν βωμὸν κ. τὴν τράπεζαν τῆς θεοῦ κατασφαγῆναι τοὺς Ἐφόρους ἅπαντας,—and ref. Isa.

From this passage probably, the τράπεζα κυρίου became an expression current in all ages of the Christian Church: see Suicer in voc.

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

21. οὐ δύνασθε. Of course it is not meant that there is any impossibility in going to the Lord’s Supper, and then going to an idol-feast: but it is morally impossible for one who has real fellowship with Christ to consent to have fellowship with demons. For one who does so consent οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν. Only those who do not realize what the Supper is, or do not realize what an idol-feast is, could think of taking part in both: cf. 2Co 6:15; Mat 6:24. The genitives may be possessive genitives, but the context indicates that they mean ‘the cup which brings you into fellowship with,’ genitives of relation.

τραπέζης Κυρίου. In Mal 1:7, Mal 1:12, ‘My table,’ i.e. the Lord’s table, means the altar; see also Eze 41:22, Eze 44:16. Here it can only mean the Lord’s Supper, ‘table’ (as often) including what was on it, especially food; hence the expression, τραπέζης μετέχειν. Wetstein quotes Diod. 4:74, μετασχὼν κοινῆς τραπέζης. Deissmann (New Light on the N.T., p. 83; see also Light, p. 355) quotes the invitation to “dine at the κλίνη of the Lord Serapis in the house of Cl. Serapion.” Probably from this passage, and perhaps also from Luk 22:30, ‘the Lord’s Table’ came to mean the Lord’s Supper. Augustine calls it ‘the table of Christ’ and ‘that great table’; Ambrose and Gregory Nazianzen, ‘the mystical table’; etc.

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

The cup of devils. Representing the heathen feast. The special reference may be either to the drinking - cup, or to that used for pouring libations.

The Lord 's table. Representing the Lord 's Supper. See ch. 1Co 11:20 sqq. The Greeks and Romans, on extraordinary occasions, placed images of the gods reclining on couches, with tables and food beside them, as if really partakers of the things offered in sacrifice. 113 Diodorus, describing the temple of Bel at Babylon, mentions a large table of beaten gold, forty feet by fifteen, standing before the colossal statues of three deities. Upon it were two drinking - cups. See, also, the story of "Bel and the Dragon," vers. 10 - 15. 114 The sacredness of the table in heathen worship is apparent from the manner in which it is combined with the altar in solemn formulae; as ara et mensa. Allusions to the table or to food and drink - offerings in honor of heathen deities occur in the Old Testament : Isa 65:11; Jer 7:18; Eze 16:18, 19; Eze 23:41. In Mal 1:7, the altar of burnt - offering is called "the table of the Lord." 115

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