Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 10:21
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.
21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils ] See note on 1Co 10:18, and for the nature of heathen sacrifices note on 1Co 8:1. The cup of devils was the libation with which the meal commenced. It was the cup of devils (1) because it was the cup of worship to beings other than God, which He Whose name was Jealous (Exo 34:14; cf. Exo 20:5) and Who ‘will not give His glory to another’ (Isa 42:8) had forbidden, and (2) because the worship of many of the gods was a distinct homage to the powers of evil, by reason of its polluting nature. Such worship obviously unfitted those who took part in it for fellowship with Christ. Cf. also 2Co 6:15-16.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord … – This does not mean that they had no physical ability to do this, or that it was a natural impossibility; for they certainly had power to do it. But it must mean that they could not consistently do it. It was not fit, proper, decent. They were solemnly bound to serve and obey Christ, they had devoted themselves to him, and they could not, consistently with these obligations, join in the worship of demons. This is a striking instance in which the word cannot is used to denote not natural but moral inability.
And the cup of devils – Demons; 1Co 10:20. In the feasts in honor of the gods, wine was poured out as a libation, or drank by the worshippers; see Virgil, Aeneas viii. 273. The custom of drinking toasts at feasts and celebrations arose from this practice of pouring out wine, or drinking in honor of the pagan gods; and is a practice that still partakes of the nature of paganism. It was one of the abominations of paganism to suppose that their gods would be pleased with the intoxicating drink. Such a pouring out of a libation was usually accompanied with a prayer to the idol god, that he would accept the offering; that he would be propitious; and that he would grant the desire of the worshipper. From that custom the habit of expressing a sentiment, or proposing a toast, uttered in drinking wine, has been derived. The toast or sentiment which now usually accompanies the drinking of a glass in this manner, if it means anything, is now also a prayer. But to whom? To the god of wine? To a pagan deity? Can it be supposed that it is a prayer offered to the true God; the God of purity? Has Yahweh directed that prayer should be offered to Him in such a manner? Can it be acceptable to Him? Either the sentiment is unmeaning, or it is a prayer offered to a pagan god, or it is mockery of Yahweh; and in either case it is improper and wicked. And it may as truly be said now of Christians as in the time of Paul. Ye cannot consistently drink the cup of the Lord at the communion table, and the cup where a prayer is offered to a false god, or to the dead, or to the air; or when, if it means anything, it is a mockery of Jehovah. Now can a Christian with any more consistency or propriety join in such celebrations, and in such unmeaning or profane libations, than he could go into the temple of an idol, and partake of the idolatrous celebrations there?
And of the table of devils – Demons. It is not needful to the force of this that we should suppose that the word means necessarily evil spirits. They were not God; and to worship them was idolatry. The apostle means that Christians could not consistently join in the worship that was offered to them, or in the feasts celebrated in honor of them.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord] It is in vain that you who frequent these idol festivals profess the religion of Christ, and commemorate his death and passion in the holy eucharist; for you can not have that fellowship with Christ which this ordinance implies, while you are partakers of the table of demons. That the Gentiles, in their sacrifices, fed on the slain beasts, and ate bread and drank wine in honour of their gods, is sufficiently clear from various accounts. See my Discourse on the Holy Eucharist, where many examples are produced. The following from Virgil, AEn. viii, verse 179-273, is proof in point:-
Tum lecti juvenes certatim araeque sacerdos
Viscera tosta ferunt taurorum, onerantque canistris
Dona laboratae Cereris, Bacchumque ministrant.
Vescitur AEneas simul et Trojana juventus
Perpetui tergo bovis et lustralibus extis.—–
Quare agite, O juvenes, tantarum in munere laudum,
Cingite fronde comas, et pocula porgite dextris,
Communemque vocate Deum, et date vina volentes.
The loaves were served in canisters; the wine
In bowls; the priests renewed the rites divine:
Broiled entrails are their food, and beef’s continued chine
Ye warlike youths, your heads with garlands crown,
Fill high the goblets with a sparkling flood,
And with deep draughts invoke our common god.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The cup of the Lord: we may either take the phrase as signifying all religious communion under one great act of religion, or as particularly signifying having a communion with Christ in the ordinance of the Lords supper, which is called
the cup of the Lord, either because God hath instituted and appointed the drinking of it, or because it is done for the honour, glory, and remembrance of our Lord Christ, to remember his death until he come, as the apostle speaketh, 1Co 11:26. This the apostle tells them they could not drink of, that is, not rightly, and with a good conscience; or not really; no man that is an idolater, or hath communion with idolaters in their idolatrous acts, can have communion with Christ. The same is meant by
the Lords table, and the table of devils. So as I cannot see how either an idolatrous church can be a true church, or an idolater a true Christian, unless we will assert, that a body of people may be a true church, that can have no communion with Christ; or a man may be a true Christian, and yet have no communion with Christ. Idolatry, doubtless, both divides the soul from Christ, as he is the Head of a believer, and as he is the Head of the church. To call any body of idolaters a true church, either morally, or metaphysically, is to say to those: Ammi, You are the Lords people, to whom God hath said, Lo-ammi. Let them be what they will, the name of a church belongeth not to them, if (as the apostle affirmeth) they can have no communion with Christ.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
21. Ye cannot drink the cup of theLordreally and spiritually; though ye may outwardly (1Ki18:21).
cup of devilsincontrast to the cup of the Lord. At idol feasts libations wereusually made from the cup to the idol first, and then the guestsdrank; so that in drinking they had fellowship with the idol.
the Lord’s tableTheLord’s Supper is a feast on a table, not a sacrifice on analtar. Our only altar is the cross, our only sacrifice that of Christonce for all. The Lord’s Supper stands, however, in the samerelation, analogically, to Christ’s sacrifice, as the Jews’sacrificial feasts did to their sacrifices (compare Mal1:7, “altar . . . table of the Lord”), and the heathenidol feasts to their idolatrous sacrifices (Isa65:11). The heathen sacrifices were offered to idol nonentities,behind which Satan lurked. The Jews’ sacrifice was but a shadow ofthe substance which was to come. Our one sacrifice of Christ is theonly substantial reality; therefore, while the partaker of the Jew’ssacrificial feast partook rather “of the altar” (1Co10:18) than of GODmanifested fully, and the heathen idol-feaster had fellowship reallywith demons, the communicant in the Lord’s Supper has in it a realcommunion of, or fellowship in, the body of Christ once sacrificed,and now exalted as the Head of redeemed humanity.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils,…. Not only they ought not, but they could not rightly, truly, and really drink the cup of wine in the Lord’s supper, in the true faith of Christ’s bloodshed, and his sacrifice offered up for them, in remembrance of his love, and to the honour of his name; and also the cup of wine of libations, poured out and drank to the honour of the Heathen deities; these things are utterly inconsistent; no man can serve two masters, God and mammon, or God and Baal; nor is there any concord between Christ and Belial, or agreement between the temple of God and idols:
ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils; no man can spiritually, however he may externally partake of the entertainment provided, on the table of the Lord, at his supper instituted and kept in commemoration of him; and also with gust and pleasure, and without any concern for the peace of weak minds, and the honour of God, eat things set upon a table in an idol’s temple, and before the idol, and as sacrificed unto it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Ye cannot ( ). Morally impossible to drink the Lord’s cup and the cup of demons, to partake of the Lord’s table and the table of demons.
Of the table of the Lord ( ). No articles, but definite idea. is from (four) and (a foot), four-footed. Here
table means, as often, what is on the table. See Lu 22:30 where Jesus says “at my table” ( ), referring to the spiritual feast hereafter. Here the reference is plainly to the Lord’s Supper ( , 1Co 11:20). See allusions in O.T. to use of the table in heathen idol feasts (Isa 65:11; Jer 7:18; Ezek 16:18; Ezek 23:41). The altar of burnt-offering is called the table of the Lord in Mal 1:7 (Vincent).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The cup of devils. Representing the heathen feast. The special reference may be either to the drinking – cup, or to that used for pouring libations.
The Lord ‘s table. Representing the Lord ‘s Supper. See ch. 1Co 11:20 sqq. The Greeks and Romans, on extraordinary occasions, placed images of the gods reclining on couches, with tables and food beside them, as if really partakers of the things offered in sacrifice. 113 Diodorus, describing the temple of Bel at Babylon, mentions a large table of beaten gold, forty feet by fifteen, standing before the colossal statues of three deities. Upon it were two drinking – cups. See, also, the story of “Bel and the Dragon,” vers. 10 – 15. 114 The sacredness of the table in heathen worship is apparent from the manner in which it is combined with the altar in solemn formulae; as ara et mensa. Allusions to the table or to food and drink – offerings in honor of heathen deities occur in the Old Testament : Isa 65:11; Jer 7:18; Eze 16:18, 19; Eze 23:41. In Mal 1:7, the altar of burnt – offering is called “the table of the Lord.” 115
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord.” (ou dunasthe poterion kuriou pinein) “Ye are not able to drink a cup of the Lord.” To drink of the fruit of the vine at the Lord’s Table, then to drink at the altars of the heathen temples, presided over by demons, is reprehensible, offensive to God, Luk 6:24.
2) And the cup of devils.” (kai poterion deimonion) “And a cup of demons,” (at the same time). Demons preside over idol’s temples, Luk 16:9. The cup of the Lord and of the devils or demons are contrasted as divinely incompatible, unholy, unacceptable, 2Th 3:6; 2Th 3:14.
3) “Ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table. (ou dunasthe trapezes kuriou metechein) “Ye are not able to be a partaker or (holder-on) to a table of the Lord.” Compromise of two conflicting, contradictory altars and programs of worship constitute base hypocrisy on the part of participants, condemned of the Lord, 2Co 6:14-17.
4) “And the table of devils. (kai trapezes diamonion) “And a partaker or holder on (to) a table of demons.” Demons have tables, altars, over which they preside and the Lord’s church has a table over which she is to preside, Luk 22:29-30. Those who serve other tables, altars of worship, have no right to eat at the Lord’s table until they lay aside allegiance to other religious tables or altars, Heb 13:9-10; 1Co 11:24-26.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(21, 22) Ye cannot . . .Here follows the special reason why the Apostle desires them not to partake of the wine poured forth in libation to devils, or the table on which meat sacrificed to these devils was spread out as food. Such would deprive them of their participation in the cup of the Lord and the table on which the Lords Supper was placed. Of course the impossibility was moral, not physical. So the Apostle adds the warning question, Do you in fact do so? Do you do that which is morally impossible, and so provoke the jealousy of our jealous God, who will have no divided allegiance? Surely we are not stronger than He? To such a question there can be but one answer. These words, which are the climax of the argument, are naturally suggested by the passage in Deuteronomy (Deu. 32:15-18), which was evidently in the Apostles mind all through this argument, containing as it does the striking words, Rock of his salvation. They sacrifice unto devils and not to God, and they provoked Him to jealousy.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
21. Cannot Ye can do one or the other; but ye cannot do both. It is a cannot arising from the incompatibility of the two things. It was the contrariety of the kingdoms of light and of darkness, and the apostle solemnly warns them to beware on which side they stand.
Cup of the Lord The Jehovah of the Old Testament, who was at war with all idolatries, the Christ of the New Testament, who is establishing the kingdom of light on earth.
Cup of devils This refers to the festal cup at the pagan sacrifices, from which the libations were poured forth, symbolizing the treating the god with wine. “Wherefore,” says Eneas in Virgil, “come forth, O youths, and in honour of so much excellence, wreath your foreheads, bring forth the cups, invoke the common deity, and present your wines.” Whatsoever Jew drank of these cups or ate the meats was denounced as an apostate.
Lord’s table The Rhemish (Romanistic) commentator makes here a desperate effort to show that St. Paul sustains the doctrine that in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper there is a living victim, Christ, repeatedly and literally sacrificed upon an altar. His opponent, Dr. Fulke, very truly replied that neither the word victim, sacrifice, or altar is once used. The Christian holy sacrament is simply selected as the opposite image to the heathen sacrificial feasts, to present strongly the contrast by which the Christian is forbidden to be sharer in the other.
Doubtless as being the successor of, and substitute for, the sacrifices of the old covenant to figure one real sacrifice, once and for evermore offered, the sacrament may be viewed as a symbolic sacrifice. It sustains the same relation that baptism does to circumcision, and that our Sunday holy-day does to the Jewish sabbath. Hence very beautifully did the Council of Ephesus say, “We celebrate in the Churches the un-bloody service of the sacrifice.” And here, as the Council by the word “un-bloody” recognises that the wine is no literal blood, so it follows that the sacrifice is of no literal victim.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons.’
That being so they only have to think about it. How can they at the same time drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons? How can they eat that which comes from the table of the Lord, and at the same time that which comes from the table of demons? The thought is abhorrent. For they would then be participating in the Lord while participating with those who are His worst enemies, with that which He hates. They would be consorting with Him and at the same time with all that is in opposition to Him. They would thereby be acting as doubleminded traitors.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 10:21. Ye cannot drink the cup, &c. There still remains one more sense of the Lord’s supper, which is, that it was a foederal rite or covenant: this is grounded upon the Apostle’s reasoning in this and the preceding verses: “Those who eat of the sacrifices, says he, are partakers of the altar: 1Co 10:18.” Now a sacrifice at the altar, was a foederal rite or covenant; consequently the feast upon that sacrifice, became a foederal rite and covenant likewise. It is easy to shew that the demons were considered as present at the heathen sacrifices, and as partakers with the worshippers inthe common feast; and that by these means friendship, brotherhood, and familiarity, were imagined to be contracted between them, because they all ate at one table, and sat down at one board. The Lord’s table, and the table of devils, therefore, being both foederal rites or covenants, the same person could not be a partaker of both; because no man can execute two foederal rites or covenants which mutually destroy each other. See Cudworth’s “True notion of the Lord’s supper,” ch. 1 and 5 Elsner and Lowman’s Heb. Ritual, p. 54.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 10:21 gives the ground of the foregoing . . [1692]
] of moral impossibility. “Nihil convenit inter Christum et impios daemones; utrisque serviri simul non potest nisi cum insigni contumelia Christi,” Erasmus, Paraph. Comp 2Co 6:15 .
] a cup having reference to the Lord, i.e. according to 1Co 10:16 : a cup which brings into communion with Christ . Its analogue is a ; the latter was quoad eventum , according to 1Co 10:20 , the cup out of which men drank at the sacrificial feast, inasmuch as the whole feast, and therefore also the wine used at it, even apart from the libation (which Grotius, Munthe, Michaelis, de Wette, and others suppose to be meant), made the partakers to be . (1Co 10:20 ).
] refers to the whole , 1Co 11:20 . Instances of with , and like expressions, may be seen in Loesner, Obss. p. 288.
[1692] . . . .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.
Ver. 21. Partakers of the Lord’s table ] Name and thing. The Popish opinion of mass was, that it might not be celebrated but upon an altar, or at least upon a superaltare, which must have its prints and carects, or else the thing was not thought to be lawfully done. Our communion table they call an oyster board. (Acts and Mon.)
And the table of devils ] Redwald, king of East Saxons, had in the same church one altar for Christian religion, and another for sacrifice to devils. (Camden.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
21. ] Reason of the , sententiously expressed without .
applies of course to the real spiritual participation of the table of the Lord so as to profit by it: to moral possibility. The is said as corresponding to the cup of which mention has been already made, not as Grot., al., and De Wette fancy, referring to the libation at an idol feast.
is said by Pollux vi. 12 (Suicer) to be used in the sense of . Compare the description in Herod. iii. 18, of the , Polyb. iv. 35. 4, . , and ref. Isa.
From this passage probably, the became an expression current in all ages of the Christian Church: see Suicer in voc.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 10:21-22 . This lively apostrophe sets in the strongest light the inconsistency of Cor [1537] Christians who conform to idolatry, the untenability of their position. “You cannot drink the Lord’s cup and the cup of demons ” the two together! “You cannot partake of the Lord’s table and the table of demons !” cf. the , , . . .; of. 2Co 6:14 ff., and other parls. The nouns forming the obj [1538] are anarthrous as being qualitative, the impossibility lying in the kind of the two cups; cf. note on 1Co 2:5 . “The Lord’s cup” is that received at His direction and signifying allegiance to Him; in 1Co 10:16 , “the cup of (His) blessing.” Possibly, P. alludes here to Mal 1:7 ; Mal 1:12 , where ‘the table” signifies “the altar of Jehovah”; but the expression is borrowed without this identification. In this context table and altar are essentially distinguished; the altar supplies the table ( cf. Heb 13:10 ). “S. Coena convivium, non sacrificium; in mensa, non in altari” (Bg [1539] ). The includes the and of 1Co 10:16 together. This passage gives its name of “the Lord’s Table” to the Eucharist. “Or (is it that) we provoke the Lord to jealousy?” is this what we mean by eating at both tables? Paul includes himself in this question; such conduct is conceivable in his case, since he had no scruple against the idolothyta on their own account (see 1Co 10:8 , 1Co 9:1 ). Deu 32:21 (neighbouring the previous allusion of 20) sufficiently indicates the result of such insolence: see other O.T. parls. For this argumentative in Paul’s questions, cf. 1Co 6:9 , etc., 1Co 9:6 . If the Cor [1540] are daring Christ’s sovereign displeasure by coquetting with idolatry, they must suppose themselves “stronger than He”! As sensible and prudent men they must see the absurdity, as well as the awful peril, of such double-dealing: cf. Deu 32:6 ; Deu 32:28 f. (1Co 1:25 ) implies inherent, personal strength. Of the . . . had given a solemn impression in ch. 1Co 5:4 f.; cf. 2Co 13:3 f.
[1537] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[1538] grammatical object.
[1539] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.
[1540]
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
cannot = are not (Greek. ou) able to.
Lord. App-98.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
21.] Reason of the ,-sententiously expressed without .
applies of course to the real spiritual participation of the table of the Lord so as to profit by it: to moral possibility. The is said as corresponding to the cup of which mention has been already made, not as Grot., al., and De Wette fancy, referring to the libation at an idol feast.
is said by Pollux vi. 12 (Suicer) to be used in the sense of . Compare the description in Herod. iii. 18, of the ,-Polyb. iv. 35. 4, . ,-and ref. Isa.
From this passage probably, the became an expression current in all ages of the Christian Church: see Suicer in voc.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 10:21. ) ye cannot, without very great sin.-, of the Lord) Christ.- , of the Lords table) The Lords Supper is a feast, not a sacrifice; on a table, not on an altar.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 10:21
1Co 10:21
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord,-[The cup of the Lord is that cup which brings into communion with the Lord.]
and the cup of demons:-[The cup of demons is the cup which brings into communion with demons.]
ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord,-[The table of the Lord is the Lords Supper at which the Lord presides and at which his people are his guests.]
and of the table of demons.-This would be to make them one. [The table of demons is the table at which demons preside, and at which all present are their guests. Here the apostle teaches that there is not merely an incongruity and inconsistency in a mans being the friend and guest of Christ and in being a guest and friend of demons, but the thing is impossible. A man cannot eat at the table of demons without being brought under their power and influence; nor can he eat at the Lords table, without being brought into contact with him, either to his salvation or to his condemnation. If he should come thoughtlessly; without any desire to commune with Christ, he eats and drinks judgment to himself. But if he comes in faith with an humble desire to obey his Master and to seek his presence, he cannot fail to be welcomed and blessed.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
cannot drink: 1Co 10:16, 1Co 8:10, Deu 32:37, Deu 32:38, 1Ki 18:21, Mat 6:24, 2Co 6:15-17
Reciprocal: Exo 18:12 – Aaron Exo 20:23 – General Exo 34:15 – eat Lev 3:11 – the food Lev 11:40 – eateth 1Ki 7:48 – the table 2Ch 4:8 – ten tables 2Ch 11:15 – for the devils Psa 86:11 – unite Psa 116:13 – I will take Isa 65:11 – prepare Jer 44:8 – ye provoke Eze 8:3 – provoketh Eze 41:22 – This is Hos 3:1 – love flagons Amo 2:8 – by Mal 1:7 – The table Mat 4:9 – if Joh 7:37 – drink Act 2:42 – in breaking 1Co 10:14 – flee 1Co 10:17 – that 1Co 11:27 – whosoever 2Co 6:14 – for Eph 5:11 – no Rev 9:20 – worship Rev 21:8 – and idolaters
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 10:21. The thought of this verse is that people cannot be in fellowship with the Lord and with devils at the same time, which Christ taught in Mat 6:24.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 10:21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of the devils. Even the rabbins laid it down as a fixed principle, that to drink the wine of a libation to idols was to apostatise from the true faith. It is not only an incongruous and abhorrent fellowship, but it is an impossible fellowship; we cannot be Christs and Belials at one and the same time: the rightful Sovereign and the base usurper cannot shake hands.
Note.If ever the sacrificial theory of the Lords Supper might be expected to be put prominently forward, one would think it should have been here, if such were its true character. But here it is held forth in a very different light, as a feast upon a sacrifice, and a feast not laid upon an altar, but spread upon a table Never, in fact, is the word altar used in the New Testament to express that at which the Lords Supper is celebrated (for no one who understands exegesis will call Heb 13:10 an exception). And considering how frequent in the New Testament is the reference to Old Testament sacrifices, in immediate connexion with the sacrifice of Christ, can this avoidance of all that could suggest a sacrificial character in the Lords Supper be other than intentional? In a word, if the Lords Supper is not a sacrifice, the New Testament language about it is just what we should expect: if it is, that language is unaccountable.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
That is, “Ye cannot have communion with Christ and with idolaters too: your comminicating with Christ in the Lord’s supper is utterly inconsistent with communicating with devils in the idol’s feasts, for this were to do homage to two contrary lords, God and Satan, and to profess service to both.”
Here observe, 1. A sacramental table described: it is the table of the Lord; so called, because he that is Lord of lords did institute it for the remembrance of his own death.
Observe, 2. An impossibility declared, that none can be worthy partakers at the Lord’s table that hold communion with sin: true, idolatry is the sin here specified, or sacrificing unto devils; but it holds true of all sin in general, and of having fellowship with Satan in any of the unfruitful works of darkness.
Learn hence, That no person can really enjoy any fellowship and communion with Christ at his holy table, who maintains correspondence with sin, and holds communion with Satan.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Vv. 21, 22. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of demons; 22. or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than He?
Edwards thinks that the matter in question here is an impossibility in point of fact. The heart cannot at the same time receive the holy inspirations of Christ and the impure influences of demons. But in that case the apostle would have used words of a more inward and spiritual character than cup and table. The impossibility is rather one of right: You cannot morally, that is to say, without self-contradiction, and drawing down on you a terrible judgment, take part at the same time in two worships so opposite to one another. The cup of demons is an expression easily understood, when we remember that in the solemn feasts of the ancients the consecration of the banquet took place with that of the cup, accompanied by the libation in honour of the gods. The first cup was offered to Jupiter; the second to Jupiter and the Nymphs; the third to Jupiter Soter. To participate in these three cups which circulated among the guests, was not this to do an act of idolatry, and to put oneself under the power of the spirit of evil, as really as the Jew by sacrificing put himself under the influence of Jehovah, and the Christian by communicating under that of Christ? Materially, no doubt, it was possible to act thus, but not without criminal inconsistency. And what proves that this is the meaning of the: Ye cannot, is the fact that, in the sequel, Paul expressly states that the Corinthians already venture to act thus; for he declares the fate which awaits them if they persist (1Co 10:22).
Vv. 22. The is taken in its usual sense in Paul’s writings: Or if, notwithstanding. In other words: Or if you will persist in acting thus, do you know what you are doing, and to what you expose yourselves? You provoke in the heart of God that more terrible fire than the fire of wrath, which is called jealousy! What is the hatred vowed against a declared enemy in comparison with the fury which falls on an unfaithful spouse? The term , to excite to jealousy, is taken from Deu 32:21 : They have provoked me to jealousy by that which is not God (idols put in the place of God). The text says briefly: Do we provoke to jealousy? Holsten regards this indicative as inadmissible, and thinks the meaning of the subjunctive to be indispensable: Would we provoke ()? He therefore takes the termination to be an irregular subjunctive form, like that which is supposed to be found in 1Co 4:6 and Gal 4:17 (see on the first of these passages). But the supposition seems to me unnecessary. The indicative signifies: Are we truly acting thus? The form supposes that it was really being done; and this is certainly what is proved by the saying 1Co 8:10, which has by no means the effect of a supposition without reality.
The apostle alludes to the maxim whereby the strong Corinthians justified their carnal conduct: All things are lawful for us. The communicative form: Do we go the length of…? Are we…? serves to soften the severity of the merciless irony: stronger than God…? The term , Lord, might be applied to God, as is usually the case in passages quoted from the Old Testament. But I rather think, with de Wette, Meyer, Hofmann, following the 1Co 10:4; 1Co 10:9; 1Co 10:21, that in this case Paul applies it to Christ.
And now, after having adjusted this burning question, the apostle reverts in a calmer tone to the less difficult one, of the use of offered meats, giving a few very simple and precise practical rules on the subject, which flow from the principles laid down in the foregoing chapters. 1Co 10:23-24; 1Co 10:32-33, prove that these injunctions are specially addressed to the strong (see Heinrici and Holsten).
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons. [At the sacrificial feasts of the pagans the provisions and wine were both blessed in the name of the idol, and thereby consecrated to him. Part of the festal cup was poured out as a libation to the idol, after which the guests drank of the cup and thus had fellowship with the idol. See &Aelig;neid 8:273. Outwardly, Christians might partake of both feasts, but it was a moral impossibility for them to do so inwardly and spiritually. We can not be wicked and holy any more than we can be black and white at the same time. We may also note that there were tables in the temples of the idols on which feasts were prepared.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
1Co 10:21. A second dissuasive from idol-feasts, suggested by 1Co 10:16-17. Now only was the presence of Christians at an idol-feast a service rendered to demons, but the pleasure which induced them to go was a cup which demons held to their lips. For such pleasure was a result of idolatry, and therefore a result of the reign of demons over men. In this lies an argument. For a cup of demons must needs be poison.
You cannot etc.: another argument. Not only is it a cup of death, but it keeps from us the cup of life.
Drink: the inward reality underlying the material act of drinking, the absorption into our inner nature of the influences proceeding from Christ and from demons. For, outwardly and materially, it is possible to drink both cups at once. But the spiritual and life-giving influences which flow to believers from the shedding of Christ’s blood, and of which the eucharistic cup is a condition, are not given to those who indulge in pleasures resulting from sin. Therefore, to accept the pleasures which idolatry offers, is to renounce the salvation offered by Christ.
The Lord’s table, table of demons; adds emphasis by picturing, in their incongruity, the sacred meal and an idol-feast.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the {s} cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.
(s) The heathen and profane people were accustomed to finish up and make an end of their feasts which they kept to the honour of their gods, in offering meat offerings and drink offerings to them, with banquets and feastings.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
It is inconsistent for a Christian to partake in the Lord’s Supper and to take part in pagan religious feasts. In the former he eats and drinks in union with Christ, and in the latter he is in union with demons who direct the devotees to worship idols. What the Lord promotes and what the demons promote are opposite. This inconsistency must be obvious to "wise men" (1Co 10:15). Christians have a unique relationship with the Lord and with fellow believers, which the Lord’s Supper symbolizes. It is, therefore, inappropriate for us to have a similar association with demons and unbelievers (1Co 10:20-21), which participation in pagan cultic events involves.