1 Corinthians 10:16

κοινωνία 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” (1 Corinthians 10:18), and as “the demons,” the unseen objects of idolatrous worship, supply their basis of communion in idolatrous feasts (1 Corinthians 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 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 in turn; their joint force lies behind the protest of 1 Corinthians 10:20 ff. Appealing to the Eucharist or Eulogia, as it was also called P. begins with “the cup” (cf. the order of Luke 22:17 ff., and Didaché ix. 2 f.), the prominent object in the sacrificial meal (1 Corinthians 10:21), containing, as one may say, the essence of the feast (cf. Psalms 23:5). τ. εὐλογίας is attributive gen [1490] (like “cup of salvation” in Psalms 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, οἱ τῆς εὐλογίας Ἰησοῦ ἄρτοι in Or [1493] on Matthew 10:25, and τὰς εὐλογίας τ. Χριστοῦ ἐσθίειν from the Catacombs (X. Kraus, Roma sotteranea, 217), cited by Hn [1494] On this view, ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν is no repetition of τῆς εὐλογίας, but is antithetical to it in the manner of Ephesians 1:3 : sc. “the cup which gives blessing, for which we give blessing to God”. The prevalent interpretation of τ. ποτήρ. τ. εὐλογίας makes the phrase a rendering of kôs 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 Luke 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. τὸ ποτήριον, τὸν ἄρτον 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 κοινωνία 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 ποτήριον and ἄρτος 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 κλασμός : so Did., § 9” (Ed [1507]). On the pl [1508] εὐλογοῦμεν, κλῶμεν, 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 προεστώς, 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.” οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος, τοῦ σώματος, τοῦ Χριστοῦ; “Is it not a communion of (or in) the blood, the body, of Christ?” (cf., for the gen [1510] after κοινωνία, note on 1 Corinthians 1:9) not “a communion with the blood, etc.” The stress lies on τοῦ Χριστοῦ in both questions: through the cup and loaf believers participate together in Christ, in the sacrifice of His blood offered to God (Romans 3:25; Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 1:11), and in the whole redemption wrought through His bodily life and death and resurrection. τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ carries our thoughts from the incarnation (Philippians 2:7), through the crucifixion (Colossians 1:22), on to the heavenly glory of the Redeemer (Philippians 3:21). The cup and bread are here styled “a communion in Christ's blood and body”; in His own words (1 Corinthians 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 Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer's krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[1493] Origen.

[1494] C. F. G. Heinrici's Erklärung 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] accusative case.

[1500] construction.

[1501] classical.

[1502] Greek, or Grotius' Annotationes in N.T.

[1503] Winer-Moulton's Grammar of N.T. Greek (8th ed., 1877).

[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] T. C. Edwards' Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians.

[1508] plural.

[1509] Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

[1510] genitive case.