1 Corinthians 10:16

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

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

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

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