16 The cup of blessing which we bless, isn't it a sharing of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, isn't it a sharing of the body of Christ?
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
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. [1] 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, [2] 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, [3] which has nothing in common with the pure rite observed by Christians. Everything, it is true, that we eat is sanctified by the word of God, as Paul himself elsewhere bears witness, (1-Timothy 4:5;) but that blessing is for a different purpose -- that our use of the gifts of God may be pure, and may tend to the glory of their Author, and to our advantage. On the other hand, the design of the mystical blessing in the Supper is, that the wine may be no longer a common beverage, but set apart for the spiritual nourishment of the soul, while it is an emblem of the blood of Christ. Paul says, that the cup which has been in this manner blessed is koinonian -- 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 koinonia (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 koinonia (communion) between us, but from this, that we are united to Christ in such a way, that we are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones? (Ephesians 5:30.) For we must first of all be incorporated (so to speak) into Christ, that we may be united to each other. In addition to this, Paul is not disputing at present merely in reference to a mutual fellowship among men, but as to the spiritual union between Christ and believers, with the view of drawing from this, that it is an intolerable sacrilege for them to be polluted by fellowship with idols. From the connection of the passage, therefore, we may conclude, that (koinonian) 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.
1 - "A la consecration mystique" -- "For a mystical consecration."
2 - "Qu'on supplee Pour;" -- "That for should be supplied." The original words ho eulogoumen, are supposed by many eminent interpreters to be instead of kath ' ho eulogoumen ton Theon -- for which we give thanks to God. -- Ed
3 - The reader will find this subject more largely dwelt upon in the Harmony, [21]vol. 3, p. 206. -- Ed.
The cup of blessing which we bless - The design of this verse and the following verses seems to be, to prove that Christians, by partaking of the Lord's Supper, are solemnly set apart to the service of the Lord Jesus; that they acknowledge Him as their Lord, and dedicate themselves to him, and that as they could not and ought not to be devoted to idols and to the Lord Jesus at the same time, so they ought not to participate in the feasts in honor of idols, or in the celebrations in which idolaters would be engaged; see 1-Corinthians 10:21. He states, therefore:
(1) That Christians are "united" and dedicated to Christ in the communion; 1-Corinthians 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, 1-Corinthians 10:18.
(3) that though an idol was nothing, yet the pagan actually sacrificed to devils, and Christians ought not to partake with them; 1-Corinthians 10:19-21. The phrase "cup of blessing" evidently refers to the wine used in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. it is called "the cup of blessing" because over it Christians praise or bless God for his mercy in providing redemption. It is not because it is the means of conveying a blessing to the souls of those who partake of it - though that is true - but because thanksgiving, blessing, and praise were rendered to God in the celebration, for the benefits of redemption; see Note, Matthew 26:26. Or it may mean, in accordance with a well known Hebraism, "the blessed cup;" the cup that is blessed. This is the more literal interpretation; and it is adopted by Calvin, Beza, Doddridge, and others.
Which we bless - Grotius, Macknight, Vatablus, Bloomfield, and many of the early church fathers suppose that this means, "over which we bless God;" or, "for which we bless God." But this is to do violence to the passage. The more obvious signification is, that there is a sense in which it may be said that the cup is blessed, and that by prayer and praise it is set apart and rendered in some sense sacred to the purposes of religion. it cannot mean that the cup has undergone any physical change, or that the wine is anything but wine; but that it has been solemnly set apart to the service of religion, and by prayer and praise designated to be used for the purpose of commemorating the Saviour's love. That may be said to be blessed which is set apart to a sacred use (Genesis 2:3; Exodus 20:11); and in this sense the cup may be said to be blessed; see Luke 9:16, "And he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven he blessed them," etc.; compare Genesis 14:9; Genesis 27:23, Genesis 27:33, Genesis 27:41; Genesis 28:1; Leviticus 9:22-23; 2-Samuel 6:18; 1-Kings 8:41.
Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? - Is it not the emblem by which the blood of Christ is exhibited, and the means by which our union through that blood is exhibited? Is it not the means by which we express our attachment to him as Christians; showing our union to him and to each other; and showing that we partake in common of the benefits of his blood? The main idea is, that by partaking of this cup they showed that they were united to him and to each other; and that they should regard themselves as set apart to him. We have communion with one κοινωνία koinōnia,) that which is in "common," that which pertains to all, that which evinces fellowship) when we partake together; when all have an equal right, and all share alike; when the same benefits or the same obligations are extended to all. And the sense here is, that Christians "partake alike" in the benefits of the blood of Christ; they share the same blessings; and they express this together, and in common, when they partake of the communion.
The bread - In the communion. It shows, since we all partake of it. that we share alike in the benefits which are imparted by means of the body of the Redeemer. In like manner it is implied that if Christians should partake with idolaters in the feasts offered in honor of idols, that they would be regarded as partaking with them in the services of idols, or as united to them, and therefore such participation was improper.
The cup of blessing - The apostle speaks here of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the כוס הברכה cos habberacah, cup of blessing, over which thanks were expressed at the conclusion of the passover. See this largely explained at the conclusion of the notes on Matthew 26:75, and in my Discourse upon the Eucharist, 8vo. 2nd 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.
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.
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 Genesis 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.
The cup of blessing--answering to the Jewish "cup of blessing," over which thanks were offered in the Passover. It was in doing so that Christ instituted this part of the Lord's Supper (Matthew 26:27; Luke 22:17, Luke 22:20).
we bless--"we," not merely ministers, but also the congregation. The minister "blesses" (that is, consecrates with blessing) the cup, not by any priestly transmitted authority of his own, but as representative of the congregation, who virtually through him bless the cup. The consecration is the corporate act of the whole Church. The act of joint blessing by him and them (not "the cup" itself, which, as also "the bread," in the Greek is in the accusative), and the consequent drinking of it together, constitute the communion, that is, the joint participation "of the blood of Christ." Compare 1-Corinthians 10:18, "They who eat . . . are partakers" (joint communicants). "Is" in both cases in this verse is literal, not represents. He who with faith partakes of the cup and the bread, partakes really but spiritually of the blood and body of Christ (Ephesians 5:30, Ephesians 5:32), and of the benefits of His sacrifice on the cross (compare 1-Corinthians 10:18). In contrast to this is to have "fellowship with devils" (1-Corinthians 10:20). ALFORD explains, "The cup . . . is the [joint] participation (that is, that whereby the act of participation takes place) of the blood," &c. It is the seal of our living union with, and a means of our partaking of, Christ as our Saviour (John 6:53-57). It is not said, "The cup . . . is the blood," or "the bread . . . is the body," but "is the communion [joint-participation] of the blood . . . body." If the bread be changed into the literal body of Christ, where is the sign of the sacrament? Romanists eat Christ "in remembrance of Himself." To drink literal blood would have been an abomination to Jews, which the first Christians were (Leviticus 17:11-12). Breaking the bread was part of the act of consecrating it, for thus was represented the crucifixion of Christ's body (1-Corinthians 11:24). The distinct specification of the bread and the wine disproves the Romish doctrine of concomitancy, and exclusion of the laity from the cup.
The cup of blessing which we bless. A name applied to the cup used in the Lord's Supper. Paul shows, from the nature of the Lord's Supper, and of the Jewish sacrificial feasts, that to eat in an idol feast is an idol communion.
Is it not the communion of the blood? etc. The symbol of joint participation or fellowship of the blood of Christ.
The bread which we break. Is not this symbol of joint participation of Christ's body?
For we being many are one bread. One loaf. There being one loaf implies that we Christians, though many, are all one body, and joint participators of the one body of Christ. Paul had no conception of a divided church.
Behold Israel after the flesh. The natural Israel, in contrast with the spiritual Israel, the church.
Are not they . . . partakers of the altar? A part of the sacrifice was eaten by the offerers and their friends, and as a part was burnt on the altar, as an offering to God, they were supposed to be partakers with God in the feast. So, too, those who partook of an idol feast, would be worshipers of the idol.
What say I then? He had said an idol was nothing (1-Corinthians 8:4). Does he not now imply an idol is something?
He affirms nothing of the kind, but he does say that the sacrifices which the Gentiles sacrifice are to devils. The idol is nothing, but to the worshiper it is a reality. That reality is not God, but really a demon. The gods were mainly dead kings and heroes who had been deified. The diamonia, or demons, were the spirits of dead men. The worship was really demon worship.
Fellowship with devils. Demons. If the feast of the Lord's Supper is communion with Christ, the feast of the altar sacrifice communion with God, who is worshiped, the feast of the idol is communion with the idol. Yet this idol in the mind of the worshiper is a diamonion, a demon.
Ye cannot drink, etc. So inconsistent are the two with each other that no man can commune with Christ who partakes of the feast of the demon.
Cup of devils. The libations offered at the idol sacrifices. A part of the cup was poured on the altar, and a part drunk by the offerers. See Ãneid 8:273.
Table of devils. The table in the idol temple where a feast was spread.
Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Such acts in an idol temple would be worship of the idol. Yet Jehovah says that he is "a jealous God" (Exodus 20:5).
The cup which we bless - By setting it apart to a sacred use, and solemnly invoking the blessing of God upon it. Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ - The means of our partaking of those invaluable benefits, which are the purchase of the blood of Christ. The communion of the body of Christ - The means of our partaking of those benefits which were purchased by the body of Christ - offered for us.
*More commentary available at chapter level.