1 Corinthians 10:16

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.

He lets them yet know that though they must not eat of things sacrificed to idols as such, and out of any regard to the idol, yet they might buy such flesh in the markets, or eat it at the table of heathen acquaintances, without asking any questions; for that the heathens' abuse of them did not render the creatures of God unfit to be the food of his servants.

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 Mat 26:75, and in my Discourse upon the Eucharist, 8vo. 2nd edit. 18

"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 (Eph 5:30, 32), and of the benefits of His sacrifice on the cross (compare 1Co 10:18). In contrast to this is to have "fellowship with devils" (1Co 10:20).

AT A COMMUNION SERVICE AT MENTONE, ON A LORD'S-DAY AFTERNOON IN DECEMBER, 1882. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." 1 Corinthians 10:16,17. [Another Sermon by Mr. Spurgeon on verse 16 is #2572, Volume 44—FELLOWSHIP WITH CHRIST.]

THERE is one great difference between Christ, as the Founder of the Christian religion, and all mere men who have attempted to fashion a system of belief. The difference is not merely that Christ's was a true religion and theirs a false one, but there is another distinction. All false prophets have sought to keep their disciples at a distance and to impress upon them not merely a high estimation of their importance, but also a superstitious reverence for their person. Yes, and sometimes altogether putting aside the thought of allowing any of their disciples to hold communion with them. Look at the false prophet, Mohamed, and you will see how he kept himself aloof from his disciples. He taught them to regard him as something superior to themselves. And the caliphs, to this day, and all those who take to themselves the titles of his successors, endeavor to invest themselves with solemn pomp and state. They forbid all to approach them without certain salaams and salutations—they never allow their followers to hold fellowship with them. It was also so with the old Pagan priests. They bade the worshippers fall down before them, but they never permitted them to come near to them and hold fellowship with them. They were for driving the people away and, in fact, the whole system of their religion depended upon the eminence of one who kept himself distinct from every other man. They were to be looked up to as a god, being regarded as a personage above all the rest, with whom they might, on no pretense whatever, hold any communion at all! Look at the "Pope," that great antichrist and false prophet! Does he encourage any to stand on friendly terms with him? Is he at all times accessible? Ah, no! He surrounds himself with cardinals and bishops and keeps himself distinct from others.

THERE is one great difference between Christ, as the Founder of the Christian religion, and all mere men who have attempted to fashion a system of belief. The difference is not merely that Christ's was a true religion and theirs a false one, but there is another distinction. All false prophets have sought to keep their disciples at a distance and to impress upon them not merely a high estimation of their importance, but also a superstitious reverence for their person. Yes, and sometimes altogether putting aside the thought of allowing any of their disciples to hold communion with them.

AT A COMMUNION SERVICE AT MENTONE, ON A LORD'S-DAY AFTERNOON IN DECEMBER, 1882. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." 1 Corinthians 10:16,17. [Another Sermon by Mr. Spurgeon on verse 16 is #2572, Volume 44—FELLOWSHIP WITH CHRIST.] I will read you the text as it is given in the Revised Version—"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ?" That is to say, is it not one form of expressing the communion of the blood of Christ? "The bread," or as it is in the margin, "the loaf which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ seeing that we, who are many, are one loaf, one body: for we all partake of the one loaf." The word, "loaf," helps to bring out more clearly the idea of unity intended to be set forth by the Apostle . It is a lamentable fact that some have fancied that this simple ordinance of the Lord's Supper has a certain magical, or at least physical power about it, so that by the mere act of eating and drinking this bread and wine, men can be made partakers of the body and blood of Christ! It is marvelous that so plain a symbol should have been so complicated by genuflection, adornments and technical phrases! Can anyone see the slightest resemblance between the Master's sitting down with the 12 and the "mass" of the Roman community? The original rite is lost in the superimposed ritual! Superstition has produced a sacrament where Jesus intended a fellowship. Too many who would not go the length of Rome, yet speak of this simple feast as if it were a dark and obscure mystery.

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 1Co 10:21. He states, therefore: (1) That Christians are “united” and dedicated to Christ in the communion; 1Co 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, 1Co 10:18. (3) That though an idol was nothing, yet the pagan actually sacrificed to devils, and Christians ought not to partake with them; 1Co 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, Mat 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. […]

Priests may put gold and great jewels on the chalice; but at least there is only one chalice to put them on. When you go to a dinner-party they put in front of you five different chalices, of five weird and heraldic shapes, to symbolise …