Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 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?
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Saviours 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 koinonia,) 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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 16. The cup of blessing] The apostle speaks here of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
It is on all hands agreed, that the apostle is here speaking of believers communicating in the sacrament of the Lords 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 Lords 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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16. The cup of blessingansweringto the Jewish “cup of blessing,” over which thanks wereoffered in the Passover. It was in doing so that Christ institutedthis 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) thecup, not by any priestly transmitted authority of his own, but asrepresentative of the congregation, who virtually through him blessthe 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 isin the accusative), and the consequent drinking of it together,constitute the communion, that is, the joint participation “ofthe blood of Christ.” Compare 1Co10:18, “They who eat . . . are partakers” (jointcommunicants). “Is” in both cases in this verse is literal,not represents. He who with faith partakes of the cup and thebread, partakes really but spiritually of the blood and body ofChrist (Eph 5:30; Eph 5:32),and of the benefits of His sacrifice on the cross (compare 1Co10:18). In contrast to this is to have “fellowship withdevils” (1Co 10:20).ALFORD explains, “Thecup . . . is the [joint] participation (that is, that whereby the actof participation takes place) of the blood,” c. It is the sealof our living union with, and a means of our partaking of, Christ asour Saviour (Joh 6:53-57).It is not said, “The cup . . . is the blood,” or”the bread . . . is the body,” but “is thecommunion [joint-participation] of the blood . . . body.”If the bread be changed into the literal body of Christ, where is thesign of the sacrament? Romanists eat Christ “in remembranceof Himself.” To drink literal blood would have been anabomination to Jews, which the first Christians were (Lev 17:11Lev 17:12). Breaking the breadwas part of the act of consecrating it, for thus was represented thecrucifixion of Christ’s body (1Co11:24). The distinct specification of the bread and the winedisproves the Romish doctrine of concomitancy, and exclusion of thelaity from the cup.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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 Ge 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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The cup of blessing ( ). The cup over which we pronounce a blessing as by Christ at the institution of the ordinance.
A communion of the blood of Christ ( ). Literally, a participation in (objective genitive) the blood of Christ. The word is an old one from , partner, and so here and Phil 2:1; Phil 3:10. It can mean also fellowship (Ga 2:9) or contribution (2Cor 8:4; Phil 1:5). It is, of course, a spiritual participation in the blood of Christ which is symbolized by the cup. Same meaning for in reference to “the body of Christ.”
The bread which we break ( ). The loaf. Inverse attraction of the antecedent () to the case (accusative) of the relative () according to classic idiom (Robertson, Grammar, p. 488). probably from , to join or fit (flour mixed with water and baked). The mention of the cup here before the bread does not mean that this order was observed for see the regular order of bread and then cup in 11:24-27.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The cup of blessing [ ] . 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 [] . 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.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “The cup of blessing which we bless.” (to poterion tes eulogias ho eulogomen) “The cup of the blessing which we bless.” This refers to the cup of the fruit of the vine which members of the Lord’s supper partake after it has been blessed. It is a cup of gratitude in memory of the blood of Christ, Mat 26:27.
2) “Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” (ouchi koinonia estin tou haimatos tou christou) “Is it not a communion of the blood of Christ?” As (a communion) from (Greek koinonia) this refers to a memorial reflection on the purpose and nature of the blood of Christ, on which basis he makes intercession for our sins, Mat 26:28.
3) “The bread which we break.” (ton arton hon kalomen) “(AND) the bread which we break.” This refers to the unleavened bread, symbolical of and a memorial of the body of Christ in which He bore our sins on the tree of Calvary, Mat 26:26.
4) “Is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (ouchi koinonia tou somatos tou christou estin) “Is it not a communion of the body of Christ?” The (Greek koinonia) means a common memorial sharing of the body of Christ, in whom we live, Luk 22:20; Luk 22:28; 1Co 11:23-26.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
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. (574) 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, (575) 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, (576) 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, (1Ti 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? (Eph 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.
(574) “ A la consecration mystique “ — “For a mystical consecration.”
(575) “ Qu’on supplee Pour ;” — “That for should be supplied.” The original words ὅ εὐλογοῦμεν, are supposed by many eminent interpreters to be instead of καθ ᾿ ὅ εὐλογοῦμεν τὸν Θεὸν — for which we give thanks to God. — Ed
(576) The reader will find this subject more largely dwelt upon in the H arm ony, vol. 3, p. 206. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(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.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? Seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body, for we are all partake of the one bread.’
Let them consider. When they partake of the cup of blessing, the wine of the Lord’s supper, does it not bring them into oneness with the blood of Christ? They drink of Him by faith (Joh 6:35). Is it not a sharing in His death? This ‘cup of blessing’ is based on the third of the four cups in the Passover meal. It is the cup which He described as symbolising the new covenant in His blood. By partaking of it in His presence at the Lord’s Table they renew their oneness in the covenant and in His sacrifice for them. They represent themselves as crucified with Christ, and as partakers in His death and resurrection. It is a partaking in, a communion with, a participation in, a uniting with, what the blood of Christ shed for them symbolises and represents. They are revealing that they are spiritually one with Him, in His death and resurrection, and in His life.
When they break the bread and partake of it, does it not bring them into oneness with the body of Christ, into participation in that body of which they have become a member by being baptised into Christ (1Co 12:12-13)? The one bread represents Christ, Who is the Bread of Life (Joh 6:35). By eating of the broken bread they become one bread together, as the bread was one, and by partaking of that one bread, indicate that they are the one body, the body of Christ, which that one bread represents. Here we have the heart of why the church is the body of Christ, because they are united with Him in His body (see 1Co 12:12-27; 1Co 6:15; Rom 12:5; Eph 1:23; Eph 5:29-30), the one body, partaking of the one bread (Joh 6:35). He is one body and they are one body in Him.
This idea is central to the New Testament concept of the body of Christ. It does not so much teach that He is the head and we are the body, but that He is the body, and that by uniting with Him in His body through faith we also become the one body with Him (Eph 2:15-16). Thus in 1 Corinthians 12 some members of the body include the eyes, ears and head because they are all part of His one body (1Co 10:16; 1Co 10:21).
The thought is of spiritual oneness with Christ and with each other. All are one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28). In spiritual oneness we have died with Christ. We have been broken with Him. But in His resurrection we are all made one together. All is put right. And that is what eating the bread symbolises.
We are not His body in a physical sense. Nor are we united with His body in a physical sense. Nor do we eat of His physical body. It is through what He has done in His body through the cross, that we are united with Him (Eph 2:14-16), and this is by faith. We are ‘eating’ what He is for us. We are united with what He did for us. It is as though we died and rose with Him. We are conjoined with Him.
(There is of course a way in which Christ is described as the Head, but that is not in contrast with the body, but in respect of His full Headship as Lord over all and over His church. It does not signify that He is not Himself the body with which they are united, for He is. The ancients did not see the body as just controlled by the head, but as controlled by the heart, liver, kidneys and bowels).
Note on the Body of Christ.
The idea of the body of Christ begins with teaching concerning the literal body of Christ. Thus when Jesus at the Last Supper took the bread and broke it and said, ‘Take, eat. This is my body.’ (Mat 26:26). ‘Take you, this is my body.’ (Mar 14:22). ‘This is my body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me’ (Luk 22:19). ‘This is my body which is for you, do this in remembrance of me’ (1Co 11:24), He was clearly pointing to His death on the cross in a physical body and equally pointing to the fact that they could nourish themselves from Him and His death. He was symbolising spiritual participation in the body of His flesh as the crucified One.
It is hardly necessary to point out that someone who was alive and well at the time could hardly have meant this to be taken literally. The bread could not be His body for He was still in His body. To claim that it was His body in a ‘mystical’ sense is to make such an idea meaningless. Such a ‘mystical body’ would not be His body in any meaningful sense of the term. It would not in fact be to declare a miracle but to argue a literal and factual impossibility, a contradiction. It would be to play with words. If we mean (rightly) that it was a symbol, a representation, then let us say that.
What Jesus in fact simply meant was that the bread was to be seen as representing His body symbolically, just as in the Passover, of which Jesus’ words were a parallel, the leader took bread and said ‘this is the bread of affliction which your fathers ate’. Such a person did not mean that it literally was that bread of affliction, but that it represented it, it symbolised it. What he actually meant was, ‘this is to remind you of, and symbolises, and allows you to partake in, by inference, by thought transference, the bread of affliction’. Each time they ate they as it were entered into the experience of eating the bread of affliction. And in the same way each time we eat the bread at the Lord’s Table we enter by inference and by thought transference into the experience of His crucifixion, confirming that we are united with Him in His death, and united with Him in His body.
Our being members (individual parts united in one) of the body of Christ Himself is likened to the union between a man and his wife in marriage (Eph 5:28-29) and in sexual relations (1Co 6:15). These relationships make a man and his wife ‘one flesh’ (Gen 2:24), acting as one in all things with the wife being totally responsive to her husband. It is the closest possible spiritual union, and in the ideal the closest possible spiritual co-operation. Its closeness is expressed in 1Co 12:12. It is Christ Himself Who is immediately represented in terms of the church as members of His body. The body is Christ. So in ‘the body of Christ’, Jesus Christ and His people are conjoined as one.
End of note).
Being then made one with Him, and partaking in His death and resurrection, can they go as members of His body (taking Christ with them) to participate in meals in the presence of, and dedicated to, demons? Can they take Christ’s body into heathen temples to participate in its functions? Can they so degrade Christ? And showing oneness in the covenant of Christ by drinking, can they not see that by partaking of the sacrifice to idols they are also showing covenant oneness with them by partaking? Do they really wish to compromise Christ and what He has accomplished?
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 10:16. The cup of blessing, &c. The Jews used to conclude the feast whereon the paschal lamb was eaten, with a cup of wine. This they called the cup of blessing, and the cup of praising, because at the time of drinking it, they sung a hymn of praise. We should likewise recollect, that in the early ages of the world, when victims made so great a part of the religion, not only of the Jews, but even of the Gentiles, the sacrifice was followed by a religious feasting on the thing which had been offered; the partakers whereof were supposed to become partakers of the benefits of the sacrifice. Well, therefore, might theApostle argue against the Corinthians, who ate of the sacrifices of the Gentiles, and communicated with the Christians, as in the verse before us; whence we may collect, that the cup of blessing, &c. is not merely a general commemoration of Christ’s death and passion; it is the spiritual communion of the blood of Christ. See Cudworth on the Sacrament.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 10:16 . ] It is most natural to take this as in the accusative , after the analogy of the second clause of the verse (against Rckert). 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]; Khner, 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 .
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.
] 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 Lord’s Supper. [1646] It is a mistake to understand . 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 . see on Mat 26:27 , and Rckert, Abendm. p. 219 f.
] an epexegesis giving additional solemnity to the statement: which we bless , consecrate with prayer, when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Comp Mar 8:7 ; Luk 9:16 ; 1Sa 9:13 . . in its literal sense must not be confounded with . (Erasmus, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Beza: “quod cum gratiarum actione sumimus”), although the prayer was , in point of fact, a thanksgiving prayer in accordance with Christ’s example, 1Co 11:24 f. As to the difference between the two words, comp on 1Co 14:16 .
. . . . . ] This is aptly explained by Grotius (after Melanchthon and others): “ 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 Rudelbach’s 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] 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 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 (Phi 3:21 ), set in only with His ascension, and if, when He instituted the Supper, His body was still but the , which soon after died upon the cross for reconciliation (Col 1:22 ), while, nevertheless, the first Lord’s Supper, dispensed by Jesus Himself , must have earned with it the whole specific essence of the sacred ordinance that 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] and 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 apostle’s 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 of Christ’s 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. fr Deutsche Theol. 1859, p. 90; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 355. Against this 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 Christ’s 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 Christ’s 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 ; 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 of the blood of Christ to the effect, “dum simul omnes nos in corpus suum inserit, ut vivat in nobis et nos in ipso.”
] 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 (Rckert), the narrative of the institution will not allow us to assume.
. .] in the strict, not in the figurative sense, as Stroth, Rosenmller, 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 Martyr’s time ( Apol. i. 65) it fell to the , 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 otherwise than ; 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 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 , Hofmann appeals inappropriately to 1Co 1:9 ; 2Co 13:13 ; 1Jn 1:3 . Joint participancy would be ; comp. , 1Co 9:23 ; Rom 11:17 ; Phi 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 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 that the . . denotes the blood not, as D. Schulz still maintains, the bloody death of 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] Rckert 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. Rckert, 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 , 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 to which refers is always (except Eph 6:13 , where it is the diabolic spirit-world that is spoken of) the Divine . In the case of gifts which are , it is this 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 Lord’s Supper, inasmuch as in this and 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 Zwingli’s doctrine is that given by Dieckhoff in his evang. Abendmahlslehre im Reformationszeitalter , I. p. 428 ff. Rckert 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 Calvin’s doctrine of the Supper, see, besides Henry and Sthelin, Kahnis, II, p. 494 ff.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
(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? (17) For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. (18) Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? (19) What say I then? that the idol is anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything? (20) 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. (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. (22) Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
There is somewhat particularly striking and solemn in this account of the Lord’s Supper. Paul calls the service the cup of blessing, and the communion of the blood of Christ; and the bread broken, the communion of the body of Christ; evidently meaning, that all truly regenerated believers, which partake in that feast, being a feast upon the sacrifice, are virtually considered by that act of faith as partaking by fellowship in all the blessings, and benefits of Christ’s death. The bread and the cup being one, and all and every individual partaking in the same, manifest thereby, their oneness, and union with Christ as Christ; and their interest, in all that belongs to Christ, as Christ. And the inference the Apostle draws from it, is also as striking. If by this solemn service, believers desire to testify their oneness with Christ; it is impossible after that, that any could be found in the idol’s temple. Paul speaks of it with a kind of abhorrence. Can any man drink of the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils? Can any man be partaker of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. Reader! we have no idol sacrifices, no form of religion in this country, where such horrid services are performed. But we have tantamount to graven images, in the follies, and pleasures, which the ungodly and carnal part of mankind, are earnest to mingle up with the mere rituals of worship. And, when we find many, who regularly fill their places at the Lord’s table, and as regularly fill their places in the synagogue of Satan, I mean public amusements and diversions; wherein do such differ from the characters the Apostle reprobates in those verses? How very plain and evident is it, therefore, that nothing can lay the foundation for communion with the Lord, but a pre-union with his Person, and an interest in his blood and righteousness. We must be first married to his Person, or there can be no right to any dowry in what belongs to him. First grafted into Christ, as the spiritual vine; or we can bring forth no fruit, as branches in him. The members of the body must he really and truly united to the head, or all vital influence is wanting. I hope the Reader knows by this heart-felt enjoyment, for it is most blessed. And when communion with Christ ariseth from an union with Christ, and the soul of a believer hath not only an habitual state of grace within, but an actual exercise in going forth in desires after Christ, and incomings of blessing from Christ; when prayers go up, and answers come down, and the Lord makes all his goodness pass before us; then a child of God enters into a real soul enjoyment of the Apostle’s word : and can truly say, that the cup of blessing, and the bread broken, open sweet communion by faith, both of the body and blood of Christ.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
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?
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
16. ] The analogy of the Lord’s Supper , which, in both its parts, is a participation in Christ. The stress throughout to 1Co 10:20 , is on , and .
is the accus., by attr. corresponding to .
. .] i.e. (c [44] ), as explained immediately by , over which we speak a blessing , the Christian form of the Jewish , 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.
[44] cumenius of Tricca in Thrace, Cent y . XI.?
] which we bless , i.e. consecrate with a prayer of thanksgiving: not, as Erasmus, Beza, ‘ quod cum gratiarum actione sumimus ’ ( ). 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 , 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.
] 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 , 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. 1Co 11:26-27 .
] 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. 1Co 11:24 ; Act 2:42 ; Act 20:7 ; Act 20:11 . For the rest, see above.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 10:16 . 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 Didach 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 ). . 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, in Or [1493] on Mat 10:25 , and . from the Catacombs (X. Kraus, Roma sotteranea , 217), cited by Hn [1494] On this view, is no repetition of , 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 . . . makes the phrase a rendering of ks 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. , 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 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 and 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 : so Did ., 9” (Ed [1507] ). On the pl [1508] , , 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 , 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.” , , ; “Is it not a communion of ( or in) the blood, the body, of Christ?” ( cf. , for the gen [1510] after , note on 1Co 1:9 ) not “a communion with the blood, etc.” The stress lies on 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. 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 Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).
[1493] Origen.
[1494] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung 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]
[1500] construction.
[1501] classical.
[1502] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.
[1503]
[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]
[1508] plural.
[1509] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).
[1510] genitive case.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
cup, &c. Four cups, one called the cup of blessing, were used at the Paschal Supper.
which we bless. Compare Mat 26:27 (gave thanks).
communion. Same as fellowship (1Co 1:9). Figure of speech Metaphor (App-6), and in the following verses.
Christ = the Christ. App-98.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
16.] The analogy of the Lords Supper, which, in both its parts, is a participation in Christ. The stress throughout to 1Co 10:20, is on , and .
is the accus., by attr. corresponding to .
. .] i.e. (c[44]), as explained immediately by ,-over which we speak a blessing, the Christian form of the Jewish , 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 Matthew 26. The rendering of Olsh., al., the cup which brings a blessing, is wrong, as being against this analogy.
[44] cumenius of Tricca in Thrace, Centy. XI.?
] which we bless, i.e. consecrate with a prayer of thanksgiving: not, as Erasmus, Beza, quod cum gratiarum actione sumimus ( ). 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 , 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.
] 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 Apostles 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 , 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. 1Co 11:26-27.
] 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. 1Co 11:24; Act 2:42; Act 20:7; Act 20:11. For the rest, see above.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 10:16. , 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 Lords 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 Pauls promiscuous arrangement [sometimes the bread, at other times the wine coming first].- , of blessing) on that account it is distinguished from a common cup, Mat 26:27.- , 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.-, 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.- , 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.- ) There is a construction similar to this, 1Co 7:17 : and in the LXX., Num 32:4. is here again to be supplied; the bread of blessing.- , 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.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 10:16
1Co 10:16
The cup of blessing-He now directs their attention to the Lords Supper which they had greatly perverted. The cup of blessing is the cup that was blessed (Mat 26:26-27) and consecrated as a means of blessings to those who properly observed it. [The word blessing is used interchangeably with gave thanks. That is, the same act is sometimes expressed by the one form and sometimes by the other. In Mat 26:26, Mar 14:22, what is expressed by blessed and had blessed in Luk 22:17; Luk 22:19; 1Co 11:24 is expressed by saying, had given thanks. And in the account of the Lords Supper as given by Matthew and Mark, the one expression 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 is addressed to God, acknowledging his mercy and imploring his blessing, and therefore may be expressed either by the words had blessed or had given thanks.]
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 a blessing to the end for which it was appointed.]
is it not a communion of the blood of Christ?-In partaking of it we become partakers of the benefits of the blood of Christ. The blood is the life, and in partaking of it, we declare that we partake of the life of Christ, we live the life of Christ.
The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?-This is but a repetition of the thought contained in the preceding clause. We partake of the benefits of the blood and body of Christ in the observance of this ordinance.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
cup: 1Co 10:21, 1Co 11:23-29, Mat 26:26-28, Mar 14:22-25, Luk 22:19, Luk 22:20
the communion of the blood: 1Co 10:20, 1Co 1:9, 1Co 12:13, Joh 6:53-58, Heb 3:14, 1Jo 1:3, 1Jo 1:7
The bread: 1Co 11:23, 1Co 11:24, Act 2:42, Act 2:46, Act 20:7, Act 20:11
Reciprocal: Exo 24:11 – did eat Psa 23:5 – my cup Psa 116:13 – I will take Eze 40:39 – tables on that Mat 14:19 – he blessed Mat 26:27 – Drink Mar 14:23 – when Mar 14:24 – This Joh 6:35 – I am Joh 6:48 – General Joh 15:5 – vine Rom 5:11 – by whom Rom 7:4 – the body 1Co 11:21 – in Col 2:19 – knit
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
COMMUNION WITH CHRIST
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?
1Co 10:16
As those to whom this Epistle was sent read St. Pauls argument, they might or might not agree with the conclusion to which he sought to lead them; they might feel it to be unduly strict, or, at any rate, impracticable; but it is surely clear, from the way in which St. Paul writes, that he was confident that they would grant him the hypothesis from which he sets out. He knew that none of them would deny that when they drank of the consecrated cup they had communion with the blood of the Lord, and that when they ate of the consecrated bread they had communion with the body of the Lord. The course of his argument is therefore conclusive that to him the Lords Supper was not a mere commemoration, not a bare memorial. Such an interpretation of this Sacrament falls short of the plain requirements of his language. We cannot so impoverish the phrases which come from him. We cannot so deny the richness of his language. His thought is essentially the same as that which underlies the familiar lines
Bread of Heaven, on Thee we feed,
For Thy flesh is meat indeed.
I. No misinterpretation of the great doctrine ought to tempt us to a denial of it.Let us do all we can to protect it from travesty; but do not let us make the mistake of repudiating what is true and reasonable for fear of opening the door to what is false and misleading. We cannot get rid of the words of institution. We cannot escape from the teaching of this passage from the pen of the Apostle to the Gentiles. We cannot overlook the suggestiveness of the sublime discourse in St. John 6, which does not indeed refer directly to the Holy Communion, but which is built up on a conception identical with the idea underlying the Lords Supper. Christ did indeed speak in a figure; but can His words mean less than that in that rite He gives His own Manhoodthat Manhood which was once slain for us, but which is now exalted to the throne of thrones? Through the Incarnation He, in Whom all life was then gathered up, is able to impart Himself to men. The Son of Man, said Bishop Westcott, lived for us and died for us, and communicates to us the effects of His life and death as perfect Man. Without this communication of Christ men can have no life in themselves. But Christs gift of Himself to a man becomes in the recipient a spring of life within.
II. The Holy Communion! Do we not feel the need of the gift which comes with it?Have we any reason to expect that gift of gifts if we stop away? Have we any right to suppose that absence from this Sacrament will involve no injury to our spiritual lives, when that absence is the outcome of insensibility, recklessness, impenitence, lovelessness? Why is it that so many of us are never found at the table of the Lord? Do we not realise how essential to us is His Presence with us? Are we not all conscious that we require to be spiritually fed by His Body and Blood? Do we not all know that without Him our souls must starve? We need Himnot merely His example or influence or teaching, but Himself.
III. There are perhaps some of us who once were regular communicants, but who have now dropped the old practice.Do they never look back with regret upon the days when they received the blessing which this service is capable of bestowing? Do they never wish, as they reflect upon what they are now and remember what they were in that bygone period, that they had not fallen away from the highest standard of worship? If that be the case with any of us, let us make a fresh start. Let us come back again. Let us renew the old sacramental life. And there are those among us who have never come to that supper. Surely their responsibility is a very grave one. This service is based upon the direct command of Christ Himself. He Himself told us that the bread should be to us as His Body, and the wine as His Blood. Do we not believe Him? But if we do, then why do we never from years end to years end draw near with faith and take this holy sacrament to our comfort? What is it that is keeping us back? Is it a sense of sin? It is the very thing that should bring us. Perhaps there are some who are about to come for the first time. They have yet to learn what the Holy Communion can be to those who partake of it in all earnestness and sincerity. They cannot expect too much. The danger is that they may expect too little. I seek, says a modern devotional writer, much more in the Eucharist than to look at a picture and be touched by it. I seek to be fed in that holy ordinance; to be spiritually nourished, through the elements of bread and wine, with that Flesh which is meat indeed, and that Blood which is drink indeed. Let us also seek and find that supreme and wondrous privilege.
Rev. the Hon. W. E. Bowen.
Illustration
Christ the sustenance of man! Christ the nourishment of man! The Self-communication of the humanity of Christ! His Manhood the food of our manhood! The conception finds frequent expression in our Liturgy. Wherefore it is our duty to render most humble and hearty thanks to Almighty God our heavenly Father, for that He hath given His Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy Sacrament. For then we spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ, and drink His Blood; then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us. In that exquisitely beautiful prayer which immediately precedes the prayer of consecration, we beseech God to grant us His grace so to eat the Flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His Blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His Body, and our souls washed through His most precious Blood, and that we may evermore dwell in Him, and He in us. In the prayer of consecration itself we ask that we receiving these Thy creatures of bread and wine, according to Thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christs holy institution, in remembrance of His death and passion, may be partakers of His most blessed Body and Blood. When the bread is given to us, we are bidden feed on Him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving. Again in the second of the alternative prayers for use after the actual Communion we offer up our thanks for that Thou dost vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of Thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ. Our Church does not regard the rite as a simple act of commemoration. She attaches to it a deeper import, a fuller and richer meaning. Her mind is a faithful reflection of the Apostolic mind.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
1Co 10:16. In chapter 8 Paul deals with the subject of meat that had been offered in sacrifie to idols. He shows that the mere eating of such meat was not wrong in itself, but that when it was used as a religious performance it constituted a form of idolatry; fellowship (or communion) with idols. On the same principle, to partake of the cup and bread in the Lord’s Supper means to have fellowship with the blood and body of Christ. Note that Paul does not call the cup and bread “The Communion,” as a familiar but careless saying puts it. In truth, the term is not to be found in a single passage in the New Testament, much less is it applied to the Lord’s Supper which is only a part of the communion or general service to Christ under the Gospel system of salvation. Bless is from EULOGEO, and Thayer’s first definition is, “to consecrate a thing with solemn prayers; to ask God’s blessing on a thing,” hence it does not mean to confer some miraculous quality on the cup and bread.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 10:16. The cup of blessing. This was the name given by the Jews to the last and most sacred of those cups of wine which were partaken of at the Paschal feast, and from that the expression was transferred to the Lords Supper.
is it not a communion of (or participation in) the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of (or participation in) the body of Christ? As all the four accounts mention the breaking of the bread, it is plain that this was meant to be no mere preliminary act, but an essential feature of the ordinance, considered as a teaching rite; proclaiming the fundamental truth that we are reconciled to God, not by the life, but by the death of Christ. This is my body, broken for you
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
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.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
The Lord’s Supper and Idolatry
When any Christian partakes of the Lord’s Supper, he partakes of the blessings of fellowship with Christ and his brethren. Both baptism and the Lord’s Supper recall Christ’s death. The fruit of the vine Christ blessed and the Corinthians gave thanks for involved a full fellowship, or partnership, of all who partook. Similarly, the unleavened bread broken in the memorial involved all who participated in a communion with the whole body of Christ ( 1Co 10:16 ; Mat 26:26-30 ; Mar 14:22-26 ; Luk 22:19-20 ).
Paul wanted them to see that the Lord’s Supper emphasizes the united nature of the church. Though the body is comprised of many members, it is still one body. Paul thought of the church as true Israel and the wilderness wanderers as “Israel after the flesh.” When they offered sacrifices, part was given to God on the altar and part was eaten by the worshiper ( Deu 12:18 ). Thus, they had fellowship with God ( 1Co 10:17-18 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
1Co 10:16-17. The cup of blessing In the Lords 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, , 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 , 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 often signifies, and is translated, Mat 16:9; where Jesus asks, Do ye not remember the five , loaves, of the five thousand? and Mat 4:3, Command that these stones be made, , 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 Lords 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.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
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 , the bread, is an attraction arising from the following , Meyer, Hofmann, Holsten, etc., have thought that it must be so also with , 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 otherwise than as a nominative.
The genitive , 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 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 , of blessing. Such a repetition would be superfluous. Besides, Paul would have required to say in this case (for which), and not , 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 () 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 () 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 would have required to be placed first both times, before the predicate , the communion. The emphasis is on the predicate: the communion. By this term , 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 , the bread, is explained by attraction of the following pronoun (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: , 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 , 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 , 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 that some commentators, such as Erasmus, Zwingle, etc., have here applied the term , 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 than . 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 , seeing that, relate to the preceding verse, while understanding the verb 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 , and, would be without example in Paul’s writings; 2, because the verb , is, could not be understood in the first proposition; it would require to be expressed as corresponding to the , 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 , 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, Rckert, Hofmann, Heinrici, etc. The conjunction , 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 , 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 , to partake, is usually construed with a simple genitive; it takes here the preposition , of, from: We all receive (a piece which comes) from the same bread. This term differs from the more inward expression , 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.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
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]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 16
This passage (1 Corinthians 10:16-18) seems to be intended to warn the Christian professor against any participation in the idolatrous services and worship prevailing around them. The sense is, We are not to partake of the idol entertainments and revellings; the feasts which we enjoy are of a different kind.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1Co 10:16. Appeal to, and exposition of, The Lord’s Supper, as a foundation for the argument of 1Co 10:21 and also to support the analogy of 1Co 10:18. Our interpretation of these words will be in great part determined by our interpretation of 1Co 11:23 ff: and this interpretation must be in turn attested by its applicability to the argument here. We must therefore assume the results gained in our note under 1Co 11:34.
The cup: put first (contrast 1Co 11:24) perhaps because of the fuller exposition in 1Co 10:17 of the other element, the bread, which presents a closer parallel to 1Co 10:18.
Cup of blessing: name given by the Jews to the third cup of wine at the Passover. Whether Paul refers to this and whether this term was commonly used of the Lord’s Supper, we cannot determine.
Bless; see Rom 1:25 : literally, to speak good words. The words spoken over the cup evidently set forth the goodness of God; as in Luk 1:64; Luk 2:28. Hence they were equivalent to thanksgiving. Cp. 1Co 14:16; 1Sa 9:13; Mat 14:19; Luk 9:16, with Joh 6:11; Mar 8:6 with Mar 8:7; Mat 26:26 with Mat 26:27. So Chrysostom: A cup of blessing He called it; since, holding it in our hands, in this way we sing praise to Him. Our first thought as we behold the symbols of the death of Christ is gratitude to God. Hence the term Eucharist, i.e. thanksgiving. And the cup which recalls the death of Christ is made here (cp. Mar 8:7; Luk 9:16) the object or matter of our blessing. The gratitude evoked by sight of the cup is made very prominent by the addition, which we bless.
We: whether by one person at each celebration or by the whole company, is left uncertain. Paul joins with others, whoever they be, in pronouncing it.
Partnership: 1Co 1:9; see Rom 15:26.
Partnership of; denotes both partnership with others, as 1Co 10:18; 1Co 10:20; 1Co 1:9; Heb 10:33; and partnership in something, as 2Co 1:7; 2Co 8:4; Php 3:10; 1Pe 5:1; 2Pe 1:4. Here probably, in spite of 1Co 10:18; 1Co 10:20, partnership (with others) in the benefits of the death of Christ, (contrast Mat 23:30,) reminding us that others share these benefits with us. Cp. 1Co 10:17. For we cannot well conceive a partnership with the blood of Christ.
Is; must be expounded by Paul’s teaching elsewhere, but requires a sense which justifies the argument of 1Co 10:16-21. Elsewhere we learn that through the shedding of the blood of Christ we receive pardon of sins and a union with Him so close that He lives in us making our life to be an outflow of His; that this truth is set forth visibly in the wine poured into the cup and drunk; and that to drink the material wine is a divinely-appointed and, to speak generally, indispensable condition of this spiritual partnership. Consequently, had not Christ died, there had been no Eucharist cup: and if we refuse the cup we surrender, by disobeying Christ’s express command, all claim to the blessings which flow from the shedding of His blood. Therefore, to us the cup is, both symbolically and practically a partnership of the blood of Christ.
We break: made prominent in the narrative (1Co 11:24) as setting forth, like the poured out wine, the death of Christ.
Of the body of Christ: partnership with other believers in the benefits resulting from the entire history of the human body of Christ, from His incarnation, holy life, death, resurrection, and glorified human presence in heaven.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
10:16 The cup of {n} blessing which we bless, is it not the {o} communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
(n) Of thanksgiving: whereupon, that holy banquet was called “eucharist”, which is Greek for thanksgiving.
(o) A most effectual pledge and note of your joining together with Christ, and ingrafting to him.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The apostle employed rhetorical questions again to make his point. He was setting the Corinthians up for what he would say in 1Co 10:19-21.
Most New Testament references to the bread and the cup in the Lord’s Supper occur in that order. Here Paul reversed the normal order. He probably turned them around because he wanted to give more attention to the bread in the verses that follow. The cup may focus on the vertical dimension of fellowship between the believer and the Lord whereas the bread focuses on the horizontal dimension (cf. 1Co 10:17). [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 467.] The pagan feasts also emphasized both dimensions of fellowship, with the god and with the fellow-worshippers.
The "cup of blessing" was a technical term for the third of four cups of wine that the Jews drank in the Passover celebration. At the Last Supper the drinking of this cup preceded the giving of thanks for the bread (cf. Luk 22:17-20). However the Lord’s Supper only involved eating bread and drinking one cup (cf. 1Co 11:23-29).
Paul described the cup as a cup of blessing, a common Jewish expression for the last cup of wine drunk at many meals. The Jews used it as a kind of toast to God for His goodness. [Note: Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 94.] However, Paul turned this around by saying we bless the cup. That is, we give thanks to God for the cup because of what it symbolizes, namely, our sharing in the benefits of Christ’s shed blood (cf. 1Co 11:25).
Likewise the bread used at the Christian feast, the Lord’s Supper, is a symbol of our participation in the effects of Christ’s slain body (cf. 1Co 11:24). The Greek word here translated "sharing" (NASB) or "participation" (NIV; koinonia) in other places reads "fellowship" or "communion." This is why another name for the Lord’s Supper is the communion service.