Within the last ten years, it has been reported that among churches of Christ in the United States there are 553 so-called “one-cup” congregations with a total membership of 18,929,1 and many more in other parts of the world. Brett Hickey, a preacher representing one of these churches,2 lists the following reasons for using only a single cup in the Lord’s Supper:
o It preserves the ordinance of God “as delivered” in the first-century church (1 Cor. 11:2).
o The biblical precedent is “one loaf and one cup,” accompanied by the directive “do this” (Mark 14:23; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25).
o Jesus authorizes only “one cup” (Matt. 26:27; Luke 22:17).
o The cup that contains the fruit of the vine has spiritual significance (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25).
o Inherent in the term “communion” (1 Cor. 10:16) is the intimacy of collective sharing, whereas the idea of “individual communion” is contradictory.
The Communion “Cup”
The word “cup” in the New Testament is translated from the Greek ποτήριον, which simply refers to a drinking vessel of any kind. The type and design of the container and what it is made of are not inherent in the term.3 The ordinary drinking vessels in the first-century Mediterranean world were typically made of stone, wood, or clay.4 Moving up the socioeconomic scale, the more affluent used copper or glass containers, while the wealthiest preferred silver or gold.5 There was a clear distinction between common vessels of wood and clay, and the more valuable ones of gold and silver (2 Tim. 2:20).
Although Jesus and his immediate disciples would likely have been counted among the lower echelons of society, the Passover meal they shared and the subsequent institution of the Lord’s Supper occurred in the home of someone with a large furnished upper guestroom and the means to accommodate and provide for thirteen adult guests (Mark 14:13-17; Luke 22:10-12). There is no way of knowing the particular kind or quality of the available drinkware.
Metaphoric Use
In scripture the “cup” is used to symbolize full to overflowing blessings (Psa. 16:5; 23:5) or wrathful judgment (Jer. 25:15).6 In either case, the imagery draws attention to that which is contained in the metaphoric cup rather than the cup itself. To “drink a cup of suffering,” for example, is descriptive of extreme anguish and violent death.7 The emblematic cup in this figure of speech is purely incidental to what causes the suffering. Every “cup” reference in the book of Revelation and the “drinking” therefrom points to the contents of the cup—wrath, abominations, fornication, judgment—wherewith the figurative “cup” is secondary, not the main point (Rev. 14:10; 16:19; 17:1-4; 18:1-6).
The Elements of the Lord’s Supper
The Lord’s Supper consists of only two specified elements: one to be eaten, the other drank (Matt. 26:26-29; 1 Cor. 11:27). Having been established in the setting of the Jewish Passover meal, the “bread,” representing Christ’s crucified body, is “unleavened” (made without leavening agents), signifying the sinlessness of the atoning sacrifice (cf. Deut. 16:3; Matt. 26:17, 26; Mark 14:12, 22; 1 Cor. 5:6-8).
The communion drink is called “the fruit of the vine” (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18), an idiomatic expression for the juice of grapes (cf. Lev. 25:5; Rev. 14:18) and symbolizing the blood shed in Christ’s death (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24).8 Partaking of the Lord’s Supper is a participation, sharing, communion [κοινωνία] of Christ’s body and blood (1 Cor. 10:16).
It is helpful to remember that conventional idioms are used in scripture for this sacred memorial: “breaking bread” (Acts 2:42; 20:7), Lord’s “supper” (1 Cor. 11:20), “cup of the Lord” (1 Cor. 10:21a), “table of the Lord” (1 Cor. 10:21b). To atomize, limit, or literalize any of these expressions is to miss the point.
Drinking the “Cup”?
The communion drink is alluded to as a “cup” or “drinking vessel” [ποτήριον] (Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17, 20) whereby the container, as a metonymy, stands for what it contains.9 When Jehu was to be anointed king, Elisha instructed his servant, “Take the flask of oil, and pour it on his head ...” (2 Kings 9:3). What was to be poured on Jehu’s head: the flask or the oil inside it? The prophet’s servant understood the directive and “poured the oil on his head” (v. 6).
What does it mean to “drink the cup” (1 Cor. 10:21; 11:26-27)? Surely it is not the literal drinking vessel that is to be swallowed but the fruit of the vine contained therein. It is the cup’s contents that we drink, representing Christ’s “poured out” blood (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20). The container itself does not consist of fluid that can be “poured out,” nor does it symbolize the blood of Christ.
Paul reminds the church at Corinth: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? Because [of] one bread, we the many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:16-17). At the time of writing Paul was in Ephesus over 340 miles (550 kms) away (1 Cor. 16:8). If taken literarily, how could the collective “we” drink from the same cup and eat of the same loaf? On the other hand, if multiple congregations can be unified in observing this memorial—partaking of Christ's body and blood without using the same drinking vessel—multiple congregants in each assembly can do the same.
Dividing the “Cup”?
In Luke 22:17 we read, “And he [Jesus] took a cup, gave thanks and said, ‘Take this [τοῦτο] and distribute [διαμερίζω] unto yourselves.” The verb διαμερίζω conveys the sense: “1. to divide into separate parts, divide, separate .... 2. to distribute objects to a series of pers., distribute .... 3. to be divided into opposing units, be divided” (BDAG 233).
It was obviously not the solid beverage container that was to be divided but what was in it (v. 18, “drink the fruit of the vine”). How can liquid be divided and distributed into thirteen separate parts unless there are separate drinking vessels? This makes sense of the “pouring out” imagery and the order of events: (a) the drink was distributed (v. 17), presumably poured into each cup; (b) the bread was broken, distributed, and eaten (vv. 19-20a); then (c) “the cup” [τὸ ποτήριον] (of previous reference) was pronounced as “the [ἡ] new covenant in the [τῷ] blood of me, the [τὸ] being poured out for you” (vv. 20-21). The accusative neuter article τὸ refers back to “the cup” representing the drink that symbolizes the blood that validated the new covenant (discussed further below).10
When Jesus said “this” [τοῦτο – singular] is my blood (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24), he was referring to what they were to drink, not a solitary container from which to drink. It is not unreasonable to assume that these thirteen men did not all share the same drinking vessel during the foregoing Passover celebration. Moreover, how was the bread divided and distributed? As noted above, rather than passing around a single loaf intact, Jesus broke [κλάω] the bread before distributing it (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24; cf. Luke 24:30). “Likewise, also the cup ...” (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25).11
“My Blood of the Covenant”?
The parallel accounts in Matthew and Mark read: “For this [τοῦτο] is my blood of the covenant [τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης] being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28); “And he said to them, ‘This [Tοῦτο] is my blood of the covenant [τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης] being poured out for many’” (Mark 14:24).12 As noted above, the singular demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο (“this”) is a clear reference to the fruit of the vine that is, for practical reasons, routinely poured into a drinking vessel prior to its consumption.13
What, then, is the relationship between Christ’s “blood” and “the covenant,” and what does Jesus mean by “my blood of the covenant”? Around six centuries prior to Christ’s sacrificial death, God promised to establish “a new covenant” with his people (Jer. 31:31-34), fulfilled when Jesus shed his blood on the cross (Heb. 8:6-13; 9:15-17). The book of Hebrews supplies a helpful commentary, wherein the blood of Christ is a primary theme (cf. 2:14; 9:6-28; 10:1-29; 12:24; 13:11-21). Jesus’s atoning blood provides eternal redemption (9:12), forgiveness of sins (9:22; 10:18), purity of conscience (9:14; 10:22), sanctification (10:10-14, 29; 13:12), and entrance into the spiritual realm of God (10:19-20).14
The new covenant of Jesus Christ—his last will and testament—was confirmed at his death (Heb. 9:15-17) in the shedding of his blood (Heb. 9:18-28; 12:24). Just as the old covenant of the Jews was inaugurated with “the blood of the covenant” (Heb. 9:20), the new and better covenant was ratified by Christ’s blood: “apart from the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness .... for removal of sin through the sacrifice of himself ... Christ having been offered to bear the sins of many ...” (9:22-28); “the blood of the covenant ... in [ἐν] which [one] was sanctified” (10:29); “in [ἐν] the blood of the everlasting covenant” (13:20).
“The New Covenant in My Blood”?
The respective accounts of Luke and Paul are worded differently than Matthew’s and Mark’s. Luke reports, “and likewise, having eaten, [he took] the cup [of previous reference, v. 17], saying, ‘This [Tοῦτο] cup [is] the new covenant in [ἐν] my blood, the [τὸ] being poured out for you’” (Luke 22:20). Paul’s recorded account, received from the Lord and likely written earlier than Luke’s, affirms, “Likewise also, having eaten, [he took] the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in [ἐν] my blood; do this as often as you may drink in remembrance of me’” (1 Cor. 11:25).
In both cases the preposition ἐν (“in”) is employed (as in Heb. 10:29; 13:20 noted above), the most common preposition in the New Testament, albeit with variations of usage. Nine times the expression ἐν τῷ αἵματί occurs with reference to Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20; Rom. 3:25; 5:9; 1 Cor. 11:25; Eph. 2:13; Heb. 10:19; Rev. 1:5; 5:9; 7:14) with the sense of “by/through/sealed by,” “by means of,” or “at the cost of.”15
The question is, does the “cup” (representing what we drink) signify Christ’s “blood” (as Matthew and Mark report) or “the new covenant” (as Luke and Paul report)? The ambiguity is no doubt related to the fact that these inspired authors have provided independent Greek translations of what Jesus originally spoke in Aramaic, which has been translated again into English. Surely these accounts are not contradictory, so how are they to be harmonized? The double use of metonymy is the most apparent solution.16
The “cup,” by metonymy, stands for what it contains (the fruit of the vine). Likewise, the “covenant,” by metonymy, stands for the blood (represented by the fruit of the vine) that is “poured out” and by which the covenant has been established. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness, and without the shedding of blood there is no covenant. When scripture speaks of the blood of the covenant “in” [ἐν] which one has been sanctified (Heb. 10:29), is the sanctification in the blood or in the covenant? Yes, it is!
A physical drinking container is not literally poured out or drank. Nor does it represent what was shed for the forgiveness of sins, to redeem and to sanctify, and to ratify the new covenant. The fruit of the vine (the juice of grapes) is the only component of the Lord’s Supper that is drinkable and that signifies these things. The emphasis is consistently on the blood that Jesus shed in his death and what is accomplished “in [ἐν] the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20). This is what the fruit of the vine symbolizes, and whatever it is poured into, as an expedient, is merely incidental.
Individual or Communal?
While communion is a collective activity (1 Cor. 10:17; 11:20), there is also an individual responsibility to reflect and self-examine (1 Cor. 11:27-29). When Christians assemble for worship, all participate as each participates (John 4:23-24; 1 Cor. 12:7-27; 16:1-3; 2 Cor. 9:6-7).
Essentials, Incidentals, Expedients
In observing the Lord’s Supper, what is necessary to know, emulate, and replicate? The Lord has specifically enjoined:
o The elements: unleavened bread and fruit of the vine.
o The symbolism: the crucified body of Jesus and his shed blood.
o The purpose: to remember and proclaim Christ’s atoning death.
o The manner: worthily, communally, self-reflectively, reverently (decently and in order).
o The attitude: thankfulness in prayer and consideration of one another.
o The frequency: every first day of the week.
o The duration: until Christ returns.
Incidentals:
o Dining table (Luke 22:14, 21, 30).
o Reclining (Matt. 26:20; John 13:12, 25, 28).
o Number of celebrants (Matt. 26:20; Mark 14:17-18).
o Large upper room (Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12; Acts 20:8).
o Bread holder (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:23).
o Drinkware (Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17, 20; 1 Cor. 11:25).
Expedients not explicitly enjoined:
o Time of day.
o Gathering place.
o Sequence of worship activities.
o Distribution process.
o Procedure for serving large crowds.
Conclusion
We know the specific elements of the Lord’s Supper and what each clearly signifies, having been instituted by the Lord himself and kept by the early church. However, we do not know what the bread may have been placed in or upon (basket, plate, napkin) or the type of vessel that held the fruit of the vine (stone jar, clay cup, glass goblet, silver chalice), and we are left with no clear symbolic relevance or spiritual significance of either. Let us not divide the church over something that is neither edible nor drinkable.
If secondary, incidental, or expedient objects were important and necessary to correctly observe the Lord’s Supper, surely that information would have been fully disclosed in sacred writ. The “cup of blessing that we bless” is the fruit of the vine, which, by drinking it, enables participation, sharing, communion of the blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16, 21). It is a substance, along with the bread, that all Christians worldwide throughout the ages can share in common in remembrance of Christ’s atoning sacrifice that cannot be accomplished by a solitary drinking vessel. Irrespective of the type of container and whether there is one or more, the contents and symbolic relevance remain the same.
--Kevin L. Moore
* Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation, rendering the texts as closely to the original wording as the translation process allows. Added words are in [square brackets] with emphasis added in bold type.
Endnotes:
1 Mac Lynn, Churches of Christ in the United States: Inclusive of Her Commonwealth and Territories. Nashville, TN: 21st Century Christian, 2016; new edition planned for 2026.
2 See Lynn McMillon’s interview with Brett Hickey, “No such thing as individual communion,” The Christian Chronicle (22 June 2016), <Link>.
3 Flask, goblet, chalice, flagon, decanter, cup, bowl, jar, etc., made of stone, wood, glass, clay, metal, with or without handle(s)? See also Matt. 10:42; 23:25-26; Mark 7:4; 9:41; Luke 11:39. Related terms include the noun σκεῦος, generically a “thing” or “object” used for any purpose but particularly a “container” or “vessel,” incl. a “jar” or “dish” (BDAG 927); also κεράμιον, an earthenware vessel, jar, pitcher (Mark 14:13; Luke 22:10).
4 Stoneware (John 2:6; cf. 19:29); wooden (2 Tim. 2:20); earthenware (Isa. 30:14; Jer. 19:1; 32:14; Rom. 9:21; Rev. 2:27; cf. 2 Cor. 4:7).
5 Gen. 44:2; 1 Kings 10:21; 2 Chron. 9:20-21; Mark 7:4; 2 Tim. 2:20. Commercial glassblowing among the Romans, adopted from Syrian craftsmen, dates back to at least the early period of Augustus’s reign. See E. Marianne Stern, “Roman Glassblowing in a Cultural Context,” American Journal of Archaeology 103.3 (July 1999): 441-484.
6 The Hebrew kowc [כּוֹס] is rendered ποτήριον in the LXX.
7 Isa. 51:17; Lam. 4:21; Psa. 10:6; 11:6; 74:9; Matt. 20:22, 23; 26:39, 42; Mark 10:38, 39; 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11.
8 Vineyards were commonplace in the ancient Near East (Matt. 20:1-8; 21:28, 33-41; Mark 12:1-11; Luke 20:9-16; 1 Cor. 9:7), and the Greek term ἄμπελος (“vine”) particularly refers to the grapevine. The expression “the fruit of the vine” would have been universally understood by Jesus, his immediate disciples, and all others in the ancient Mediterranean world as the product of the grapevine (cf. Gen. 40:9-11; Lev. 25:5; Jas. 3:12; Rev. 14:18). In the NT the word “wine” (Greek οἶνος) is never used with reference to the Lord’s Supper, notwithstanding a few modern English paraphrastic versions.
9 See BDAG 857. A metonymy is a figure of speech in which a related word is substituted for another to convey the understood meaning (e.g., Matt. 2:6; 3:5; 5:13-14; Luke 1:51; 9:23; 11:20; 16:31; 22:20, 42; 23:46; 1 Cor. 11:25-28; et al.).
10 The article, when repeated after a noun and before a prepositional phrase, is used as a relative pronoun mainly for emphasis but also to avoid attributing the phrase to other substantives in the sentence. Thus, “the cup [τὸ ποτήριον] ... ‘This the cup [Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον] ... which [τὸ] for you [ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν] is being poured out.” See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 213-14.
11 Although Matthew records what was said and Mark what was done, the two accounts are parallel: “And he took a cup and gave thanks, he gave to them, saying, ‘Drink of [ἐξ] it, all [of you]’” (Matt. 26:27); “And he took a cup, gave thanks, gave to them, and they all drank of [ἐξ] it” (Mark 14:23). While some translations apply the adj. πάντες (“all”) to the amount they drank (ASV, Darby, Douay-Rheims, Jub., KJV), most others apply it to the total number of those to whom Jesus spoke. But whether they drank all of it or they all drank it, by harmonizing the combined reports of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we understand that the fruit of the vine, not a container, is what they drank, and the preposition ἐξ (“of” or “from”) would then indicate that each partook of a divided portion of the juice without necessarily drinking from the same container.
12 The Byzantine Majority Text includes the article τὸ and adj. καινῆς, thus “the [blood] of the new covenant” (ISV, N/KJV, LSV, WEB, YLT); cf. 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 9:15. According to the NET translators’ and study notes, “Most witnesses, including several significant ones, read καινῆς (kainēs, “new”) here. Homoioteleuton is a possible reason for the omission, since the article, adjective, and noun are all first declension genitive singulars ... but the likelihood of excellent, early, and sufficiently diverse witnesses all making the same mistake is remote. A much more probable scenario is that the addition of καινῆς was motivated by the parallel in Luke 22:20. It is a natural expansion on the text. Coupled with the fact that the shorter reading is found in such good and diverse witnesses (e.g., P37,45vid א B L Z Θ 0298vid 33 mae), it most likely is the initial text. Jesus’ death established the forgiveness promised in the new covenant of Jer. 31:31. Jesus is reinterpreting the symbolism of the Passover meal, indicating the presence of a new era.”
13 The NET renders these texts, “this is my blood, the blood of the covenant ...” The translators’ note states: “In order to avoid confusion about which is poured out, the translation supplies ‘blood’ twice so that the following phrase clearly modifies ‘blood,’ not ‘covenant.’” Other renderings include, “My blood that establishes the covenant” (HCSB); “the blood which ratifies the Covenant” (Weymouth); “for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant” (NLT).
14 The blood of Jesus purchased the church (Acts 20:28), atones (Rom. 3:25), justifies (Rom. 5:9), redeems and forgives (Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18-19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5; 5:9; 7:14), reconciles (Eph. 2:13), makes peace (Col. 1:20), and affords victory (Rev. 12:11; 19:11-15).
15 Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012) 115-20.
16 Through the prophet Zechariah, to encourage post-exilic Jews, God promised to defend them against their enemies, with the assurance, “As also for you, because of the blood of your covenant, I will set free your prisoners from the waterless pit” (Zech. 9:11). Here “the blood,” which ratified the covenant God had made with them through Moses (Ex. 24:8), is a metonymy for the covenant itself.
** Among the sources cited above, BDAG is the abbreviation for Walter Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Related Posts: Elements of the Lord's Supper, The Communion Bread, Frequency of the Lord's Supper, Closed Communion
Related articles:
Image credit: https://www.dreamstime.com/photos-images/winter-hot-tea-hands-holding-steaming-mug.html
No comments:
Post a Comment