The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not [the] communion of the blood of the Christ? The bread which we break, is it not [the] communion of the body of the Christ?
Paul is warning the Corinthians to keep away from idol feasts. He stops arguing and asks two questions instead. They are about the cup they bless and the loaf they break. His point is that eating and drinking are never neutral acts: they join you to what is on the table.
The two questions belong to Paul's argument about idolatry. One commentator sets three tables side by side:
after_note: DELETE
The apostle is dealing with the question of idolatry. The Jews shared in the altar; the Gentiles drank the cup of demons. What we Christians share in is communion with the sacrifice of Christ. We are identified with that sacrifice, and we cannot be identified with the cup of demons too.
The phrase is easy to misread as blessing coming down to us. Commentators point instead to the Passover meal, where one cup carried thanks up to God:
Here we are to understand blessing rising to God from His people. The phrase that follows, "which we bless", shows that the Spirit of God means blessing given by the worshippers, and not blessing given to them. The words also match the Jews' cup of blessing, which clearly meant blessing rising to God. The Passover service in the apostles' time included a Cup of Blessing. It was called that because those who took the cup said the words, "Blessed are You, Jehovah our God".
So to bless the cup is to give thanks for it. What the cup cost Christ, and who gives the thanks, both matter:
For us the cup is a "cup of blessing", a symbol of the blood of Christ. It reminds us of His death, when at the Cross He shed the blood that cleanses from all sin. For Him it was a cup of judgment. But the cup that brought judgment to Him secures blessing for us. For this cup we can bless, or give thanks. Blessing the cup here carries no thought of one person consecrating the bread and the wine, as corrupt Christendom imagines.
after_note: DELETE The Apostle says, "we" bless, "we" break, and "we" partake.
Paul names the cup before the loaf. One writer sees purpose in that order:
That is the cup for which we give thanks at the Lord's Supper. The cup comes first because we can only get right with God on the ground of redemption by blood. That is why the Spirit stresses the fact of death here, by putting the cup before the loaf.
Paul also writes "of Christ" here, not "of the Lord" as in the next chapter:
The first appeal rests on the blood of Christ. That blood is the answer of divine grace to the deepest need of a soul that stands guilty before God and covered with defilement. Was this to be treated lightly? … Here he does not say "the blood" or "the body of the Lord". We find that in 1 Corinthians 11. Here it is Christ, because the matter is one of grace. "The Lord" brings in the idea of authority.
The verse calls the cup a "participation" in Christ's blood; older translations say "communion". That word usually makes us think of fellowship with each other, but here it means something else:
There are two expressions of fellowship here — fellowship with and fellowship of. We usually speak of fellowship with one another, more in the sense of 1 John 1:7. But here it is not communion with, but communion of. The words "communion" (verse 16), "partakers" (verse 18) and "fellowship" all stand for the same root word in the original, which gives the idea of sharing in common. … The fellowship, or communion, of the blood of Christ is the sharing in common with all God's children in all the value of His wonderful death.
Sharing in the body of Christ does not mean the loaf turns into it:
There is no need, however, for fanciful ideas about the bread. Let us be clear that the material is bread, and that it stays bread. He said, "This is My body," using a figure of speech, as He often did. … When He said "This is My body," He gave the loaf a special meaning as His memorial.
Eating identifies you. That already settled the Corinthians' visits to idol feasts:
Israel by natural descent ate of the altar, and by eating they identified themselves with it. In the same way, if you share the table of the Lord, you have a common part in it with others. Eating is not itself identity with the body, but the sign of it. You cannot share in Christ and in demons at the same time. This is a moral "cannot".
- Cup — the cup of judgment Christ drank becomes the cup we bless. To bless it is to send thanks up to God, as at the Passover cup.
- We — "we bless," "we break," "we partake": the thanks belong to everyone who shares the meal, not to one person consecrating the bread and the wine.
- Communion — the word means sharing in common. We share with all God's children in the whole value of Christ's death.
- Sign — the bread stays bread, and the cup is a symbol of His blood. The sign is not the thing itself.
- Therefore — sharing identifies you. Eating joins you to the altar, so you cannot have a common part with Christ and with demons at once.
Because we, [being] many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf.
Paul is warning the Corinthians away from idol feasts. He does it by pointing at their own table — at the loaf they break. The verse turns a simple act of eating into a statement about who Christians are. What does the one loaf stand for? How far does the "we" reach?
The verse sits inside a warning. The table where Christians eat already says something, and the idol's table denies it.
The bread which we break was nothing less than fellowship with the body of Christ. At the same time it set forth the close unity of His saints on earth. What could be more inconsistent than to own this truth in the breaking of bread, and then to disown it by feasting in idol temples?
If the loaf stands for the body of Christ, what does that make the people who share it?
The blood of Christ awakens the gravest thoughts in the Christian. The body of Christ speaks of the closest unity possible, since we, the many, are one loaf, one body, and we all partake of the one loaf. The bread does not become the body of Christ, nor is the body joined to it. It is the loaf that we break, and it is the one loaf of which we all partake. It stands for the one body of Christ; and if the loaf is that body, then we, the many, are that one loaf too.
Commentators differ here. Some hold that the loaf stands for the body of Christ given in death, and nothing else. On this view, the shared act of eating is what shows the unity of believers.
Read that verse with care. It states that we, who partake of the cup and the loaf as we should, are one bread — or loaf — that is, one body. The sign of that fact is that we all partake of the one loaf. The loaf is the symbol of the holy body of our Lord, given up in death as a sacrifice for us all, and of that alone.
Others point back to the tabernacle, the tent where Israel worshipped God. Twelve loaves stood on its table, and that number, they argue, is part of the message.
It has been said that we do not have the unity of the church shown in the one loaf, but only in our partaking of that one loaf (Christ). But when we remember that there were twelve loaves on the table in the tabernacle, and that these symbolised Israel's national unity presented before God in Christ, we can hardly fail to connect the unity of the church in Christ with what is represented in the one loaf.
What does it mean to "partake"? Israel's own sacrifices give the picture.
At its simplest, the word communion means a common participation. Here it is the saints, as members of the one body, sharing together at the Lord's Table in what the blood and the body of Christ set forth. Eating or drinking implies identification with the thing eaten or drunk. So the apostle says, "Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?" That is, by eating what they had placed on the altar as a sacrifice, they became identified with the sacrifices.
The "we" is not limited to the people in the room, or even the believers in one town.
In partaking of the "one bread", we set forth our identification with the one body. Christ is the Head of that body, and all believers are members of it. The "one bread" does not only mean that those who partake at any given time are one. It does not only mean that believers in one place are one. It sets forth the unity of the whole body, which includes every true believer.
Owning that worldwide union does not settle every question of conduct.
So in partaking of the one loaf, the Christian who is taught by God owns his union with all true believers across the whole earth. Their ignorance, weakness, or Christ-dishonouring divisions do not change that. But even so, he can only have fellowship with those who seek to walk in obedience to the word, and apart from evident evil. The Holy Spirit of God would certainly never seek to keep outward unity at the cost of inward holiness.
- One loaf. Commentators read the "one bread" as a single loaf, and Paul's argument rests on there being only one.
- One body. The loaf represents the body of Christ. Commentators differ on whether it also pictures the church, or whether the shared eating alone does that.
- All partake. "Partake" means common participation. Eating identifies you with what you eat, just as Israel's eating of the sacrifices made them participants in the altar.
- All believers. The "we" stretches past the room and the town to the whole body — every true believer on earth.
- One table. Owning that union at the table while feasting in idol temples is a contradiction. And unity is never kept at the cost of holiness.
See Israel according to flesh are not they who eat the sacrifices in communion with the altar?
Paul has just spoken of the cup and the loaf, and now he turns to Israel's altar to prove a principle: eating from a sacrifice ties the eater to that altar. Could a Christian in Corinth sit at an idol feast and treat it as just a meal?
Older translations read "Israel after the flesh" — the nation as it stood by natural birth. One writer takes Paul's appeal here as our warrant to read Israel's practices as pictures for us.
1 Corinthians 10:18 gives us the right to find help in the Old Testament on this very question. There Paul writes, "Observe Israel after the flesh" — that is, Israel in their condition by nature. What was true for them we can carry over to ourselves in a spiritual sense. In this way, the illustrations in the Old Testament help us to understand the New Testament better.
Paul has one particular offering in view.
I think many of the Lord's people read this verse without thinking of what it refers to. It no doubt refers to the peace offering. Unless we understand that offering, we cannot understand 1 Corinthians 10:18.
One victim fed several groups at once.
Aaron and his sons in general received part, the offering priest in particular received part, and the larger portion stayed with the offerer, his family and his friends. One victim thus brought Jehovah, the priestly body, the true Priest, and the faithful at large into a remarkable fellowship. That is what marks out the peace offering… By eating of these they had fellowship with the altar. This was their communion, and it made communion with the heathen and their idols morally impossible, for behind those idols were demons.
The act of eating carries a meaning larger than the food.
To eat at an altar or table is expressive of communion and fellowship with that altar or table as well as with those at that altar. To sit at a table and eat denotes identification with that table and with what it stands for.
This closes the door on the excuse that intentions decide the matter.
You may protest, "But we do not want to worship Zeus, we do not want to worship any heathen idols. We are simply there to eat some meat. Inwardly, our hearts belong to the Lord Jesus, and He will forgive us these outward things." No. Whoever shares outwardly in sacrifices to idols is in inward communion with the "altar."
Two Old Testament passages tie the altar to a second word — the table.
In Malachi 1:7 we read, "You offer polluted bread upon My altar… in that you say, The table of the Lord is contemptible." The altar and the table, as we see here, are the same. Ezekiel 41:22 supports this as well… Once we see it, we understand the meaning of 1 Corinthians 10:18 better… That verse is the key to the passage, and Paul uses it as an illustration. We might say "partakers of the table" instead of "partakers of the altar."
The link has a limit. Eating from the altar guaranteed one thing, but not everything.
The richer and vital parts of the sacrifice were His. The rest was the portion of His priests and worshippers. This was a precious picture of the more perfect fellowship the one Spirit now sets up between the Father and true worshippers in the one acceptable offering of Christ. The outward ordinance put the Israelite in communion with the altar, not necessarily with God, who is known by faith only. So now too, a natural man can outwardly take the food that really feeds only those who are themselves "of God."
Israel's share was real, but limited. Christians receive the very part the priests could never touch.
"We have an altar, of which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat." The Jews might taunt Christians as a people without a country, without a nationality, without an altar. Yet Christians had all these, and much more… Israel indeed were partakers of the altar (1 Corinthians 10:18), and we Christians eat what has been sacrificed there. But the food we feed on — the sin-offering whose blood was carried inside the sanctuary — was just what God withheld from those who served the tabernacle.
- Look — Paul points to Israel by natural birth, and treats God's ways with that nation as a picture for us.
- Eat — the picture is the peace offering: one victim shared by God, the priests, and the worshipper with his friends.
- Belong — eating at an altar ties you to it. The outward act counts, whatever you intend inside.
- Beware — communion with the altar was not the same as communion with God, who is known by faith. Anyone can do the outward act.
- Receive — Christians have an altar too. We feed on the very sacrifice that those serving the tabernacle could never eat.
What then do I say? that what is sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything?
The Corinthians had a slogan they were proud of: an idol is nothing, so meat offered to one cannot matter. Paul picks up their own logic and asks if he is contradicting himself. His answer shows what stands behind a lifeless image.
Paul had already dismissed idols as empty. His question does not take that back. It draws a line between the image and the power behind it.
Does this contradict the apostle's earlier reasoning, and that of the prophets of old, that the idol was a mere nothing? Not at all. These products of man's devising have no existence, and their images neither see nor hear. But demons are very real. They take advantage of man's imagination or his fears, and claim the idol-sacrifices for themselves.
If the idol is empty, why did it hold such a grip on people? Something more than wood and stone must have been at work.
He had already, along with all who have knowledge, treated both idols and their offerings with contempt. He does not now take back his words. But he will also let us know what sort of power animates and secretly sustains these empty vanities. Human souls and bodies were defiled by bowing down to something which was not God — something that in itself was nothing in the world. But "nothing" cannot move men's souls. There is a power at work, and it operates everywhere.
No pagan worshipper set out to honour demons. But what an act does is not settled by what the worshipper has in mind.
The idols and their sacrifices may be completely powerless. But demons hiding behind them shut the true God out of souls and take for themselves the honour due to Him alone. This is the effect of heathen worship, not the intention of the worshippers or of those who share in their sacrifices. They no more planned to revere demons — fallen and evil spirits — than the unconverted today mean to serve Satan. But they did, and they still do, all the same. The truth puts things in their real light, which man's reasoning, imagination, or indifference leaves in the shade.
The issue is not whether the food changes. It is what the act says in public about where a person stands.
One might say that an idol is nothing anyway, and so there is no significance in any outward identification with it. But this is not correct reasoning. True, the idol is nothing, and meat offered to idols is not actually changed by this. But behind the idol in every case is an evil spirit, and the Gentiles, in their idol worship, were sacrificing to demons. Can the believer have any part in this? It is not a question of whether his own conscience is defiled, or his own soul affected, but of his outwardly showing fellowship with an idol. He is outwardly compromising the honour of his Lord.
The wider passage lines up three fellowships, each entered by the same simple act. No one can hold two of them at once.
Verses 16 to 20 set before us three communions: the Christian, the Jewish, and the heathen. They are centred, in that order, in the Table of the Lord, the altar in the middle of Israel, and the idol sacrifices of paganism. Each one is expressed by the act of eating. In this passage Israel's altar is not the question. It comes in only as an illustration, and is left there. The issue here lies between the communion of Christ's death and the communion of demons. These two are totally, fundamentally and continuously opposed. It is impossible to share in both. "You cannot," says the apostle, twice over in verse 21.
Freedom is real. Careless use of it leaves a believer exposed.
Christian liberty is indeed always free; but let God's people beware. That wicked one will certainly touch them if they place themselves carelessly within his reach. To take part in an idol feast would be something morally incompatible with a true and intelligent share in the Lord's table.
- Nothing — Paul stands by his verdict that the idol is empty. The image sees nothing and hears nothing.
- Something — yet "nothing" cannot move men's souls. A real power stands behind the empty image: demons who claim the sacrifice for themselves.
- Unintended — no worshipper meant to honour demons, just as no unbeliever today means to serve Satan. The act still carried its meaning.
- Identification — eating joins you to the table you eat at. The question is not your own conscience. It is your Lord's honour in public.
- Exclusive — the communion of Christ's death and the communion of demons stand opposed. Careless liberty walks straight into the enemy's reach.
But that what [the nations] sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God. Now I do not wish you to be in communion with demons.
The Corinthians had a clever argument. An idol is nothing at all, so eating at a pagan temple feast should be harmless. Paul agrees about the idol. Then he names who receives those sacrifices.
The apostle does not retreat from what he said earlier about idols being empty. He shifts the question from the statue to what stands behind it.
Does this contradict what the apostle said earlier, and the prophets before him — that the idol was nothing at all? Not at all. Even if the things man makes have no existence, and their images cannot see or hear, demons are very real. They take advantage of man's imagination or his fears. They claim the idol-sacrifices for themselves. So the emptiness of idols is no reason to eat meat sacrificed to them. For "what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God." (See Deuteronomy 32:17.)
So the demons are not idle spectators. They have a purpose in the whole business, and a prize they are after.
You forget that when they sacrifice to idols, they are really sacrificing to demons. The demons are the ones who stir up this idol worship. The idol may indeed be nothing at all. But the demons behind it were very real. In leading men to worship idols they were leading men to worship demons, and so seizing the homage due to God alone.
A Corinthian could protest that his heart was not in the ceremony. The verse leaves no room for that. Eating and drinking is itself a declaration.
In doing so they were identifying themselves and having fellowship with the demons who used the idol to seize God's place! They could not say, "our hearts are not in it, there is no spiritual connection with the idol." No! By the act of eating and drinking what had been offered to the idol, they expressed identification and fellowship with it and with the demon!
Pagan worshippers did not set out to honour demons. That changed nothing.
This is the effect of pagan worship, not the intention of the worshippers or of those who share in their sacrifices. They meant to honour demons no more than unconverted people today mean to serve Satan. But they did it, and they still do.
Israel made the golden calf as a picture of the Lord, not as a rival to Him. That did not make it safe.
Verse 5 shows that in some way the visible calf was to represent the unseen Lord — so they thought. Now it is a fact that among pagan peoples the visible idol does represent an unseen power, as 1 Corinthians 10:20 shows. The idol is nothing, but the power it represents is that of a demon. So if any power stood behind the golden calf, it was of a satanic kind and not of God.
Paul's stated wish — that they not be partners with demons — is not a mild preference. Fellowship with the Lord makes a second fellowship impossible.
Communion with demons, answers the apostle, is the result... But no one can have fellowship with the Lord and with demons. If he tampers with demons, has he not in effect abandoned the Lord? ... If fellowship takes some in, it shuts others out... Love cannot help being jealous of wandering affections. It would not be love if it did not resent unfaithfulness. And is He so powerless that we can despise Him and get away with it?
This is not only an ancient problem. The same hand works at every level of culture, from the simple to the highly educated.
Satan is the real promoter of it all. He knows how to lead a poor, unthinking pagan to be satisfied with an imaginary charm. He leads the Greeks and Romans to enjoy their grand statues, and the Brahmins and Hindus to take pride in their superior and refined mysticism... Add to this another kind of idolatry that Christians are sometimes drawn into: letting anything but Christ have the first place in the heart. For God is revealed in Him. He "is the image of the invisible God" — "He is the true God." "Little children, keep yourselves from idols." 1 John 5:21.
- Behind — the idol itself is empty, but a real being stands behind it. Paul's point is not that the statue has power. It is that someone else receives the offering.
- Behind, and hungry — demons drive idol worship. They take for themselves the homage that belongs to God alone.
- Behind, and binding — eating and drinking expresses fellowship. What the worshipper intends does not change what the act says.
- Behind, and excluding — fellowship with the Lord rules out fellowship with demons. His love is jealous, and it will not share.
- Behind, still today — the same power fits itself to charms, grand statues, or refined mysticism. The last warning is about anything that takes Christ's place in the heart.
Ye cannot drink [the] Lord's cup, and [the] cup of demons ye cannot partake of [the] Lord's table, and of [the] table of demons.
Some Christians in Corinth still sat down at meals held in idol temples, sure that an idol was nothing. His answer is not advice but a flat impossibility: two cups and two tables cannot both be yours.
Their reasoning began with real truth and ended in the wrong place.
Some of the Corinthians knew that an idol was nothing in the world, and that there was no God but one. Yet they thought that if they saw that clearly, they could sit and eat in an idol's temple. In this they were wrong... Granted that the idol was nothing, yet behind it were demons, and by sitting at the idol's festival they would be having communion with demons.
Each table stands for a fellowship, and each fellowship makes a claim on the people who share it.
The cup is the fellowship of the blood of Christ. The bread is the fellowship of the body of Christ. Every believer is bound to be faithful to this fellowship. It marks off the whole company from everything He died to — from sin and from the world. In connection with sin and the world, the god of this world spreads his table.
Paul could have said this was unwise or forbidden. He chose a stronger word, and repeated it.
He does not say you ought not to "partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons," but "you cannot." The heart cannot take in the Lord's rich provision, and so be filled and moved by His love, and at the same time be ruled by some evil thing it wants for itself. That is quite impossible.
The wider passage sets three forms of worship side by side. This verse names the two that collide.
Verses 16 to 20 set before us three communions: the Christian, the Jewish, and the heathen. Each has its centre — the Table of the Lord, the Altar in the middle of Israel, and the idol sacrifices of paganism. Each one shows itself in the act of eating... The issue here lies between the communion of Christ's death and the communion of demons. These two are totally, fundamentally and continuously opposed. It is impossible to be a participator in both. "You cannot," says the Apostle, twice in verse 21.
Earlier in the chapter Paul speaks of the blood and body of Christ. Here he switches to the Lord — and the switch carries weight.
He does not say here "the blood" or the "body of the Lord." That comes in 1 Corinthians 11. Here it is Christ, because it becomes a question of grace. "The Lord" brings in the idea of authority... But he does not forget His authority. It is not simply the love of Christ, but His full authority as the Lord. The apostle sets two mighty powers against each other. On one side are demons, a power stronger than man, struggling with him here below. On the other is the Lord who shed His blood for them — the Lord of all, who will judge the living and the dead.
Some readers have turned the phrase "table of demons" into a weapon against other groups of believers.
To call the tables of national churches or sects tables of demons is a simple absurdity, in defiance of the plain language of Scripture. What "demons" means is clearly stated in Scripture: nothing but the gods of the heathen... The apostle speaks of communion with demons (in idol temples) and heathen sacrifices, and nothing else. To apply this to wrong church principles, where the Lord is owned as the only object, is trifling with Scripture and nonsense in itself.
The next verse asks whether we provoke the Lord to jealousy, and whether we are stronger than He. That question has teeth.
We have seen that this was something that some of the Corinthians were doing. But they could not do it without consequence. It was a provocation to the Lord... If they kept up such gross inconsistency, the Lord Himself would take up the matter.
- Behind — the idol itself was nothing, but demons stood behind it, so the meal was real communion with them.
- Between — a table joins you to everything it stands for; two tables mean two fellowships that clash at every point.
- Beyond — Paul says "cannot," not "should not"; His love and a hidden rival cannot rule the same heart.
- Belonging — the title "Lord" is deliberate: grace invites us to His table, authority keeps us there.
- Beware — "table of demons" means the heathen feast, not other Christian gatherings. Keep both tables, though, and the Lord Himself takes the matter up.